{"took":357,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":79,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"4873938","_score":23.433569,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"To Whom It May Concern : 1. As Servicer of the above referenced Mortgage Loan, please treat this as a notice of error pursuant to the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, subject to the response time set out in Regulation X, 12 C.F.R. 1024.35 ( e ) ( 3 ) ( i ) ( B ).\n\n2. 1024.35 Borrower asserts an error relating to the servicing of a mortgage loan is a notice of error. 35 ( b ) ( 5 ) Imposition of a fee or charge that the servicer lacks a reasonable basis to impose upon the borrower.\n\n3. Error Resolution Notice under 12 C.F.R. 1024.35 and correcting the error or errors identified by the borrower and providing the borrower with a written notification of the correction, the effective date of the correction, and contact information, including a telephone number, for further assistance.\n\n4. ( ii ) Different or additional error. If during a reasonable investigation of a notice of error, a servicer concludes that errors occurred other than, or in addition to, the error or errors alleged by the borrower, the servicer shall correct all such additional errors and provide the borrower with a written notification that describes the errors the servicer identified, the action taken to correct the errors, the effective date of the correction, and contact information, including a telephone number, for further assistance. \n\n5. XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) and XXXX XXXX illegal practices pose a detriment and these fees imposed were fraudulent in nature. This practice is unfair to us as borrowers and we are harmed by this illegal practices since the additional {$51.00}, XXXX was added to our original loan amount.. These practices are unfair, abusive, deceptive or predatory acts by the financial services company and its affiliatessuch as excessive fees, financial fraud or other illegal acts against me the consumer.\n\n6. I visited the property on two prior occasions and was provided incorrect codes to enter the property. I entered the property on a third occasion and took photograph ( see attachment ) of the entire house and all the damage within and throughout. It is evident that no work was performed for numerous years especially amounting to {$51000.00}. \n\n7. Select Portfolio Services incorrectly imposed preservation fees to my loan in the amount of approximately {$51.00}, XXXX from XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX. Photo documentation reflect the home has been in despair for awhile and deteriorated. XXXX and XXXX XXXX has added fees to the mortgage loan and no work or little work was performed.\n\n8. Payoff Errors : Select Portfolio Services provided an inaccurate mortgage payoff balance, since there was possible fraud by XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) and XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) and Safeguard properties collected over {$51.00}, XXXX of monies for work not performed. \n\n9. I am requesting Select Portfolio Services Inc certified me through the documents that an error has occurred and credit my account. As a borrow I should be protected from these unfair deceptive practices.\n\n10. A servicer is generally required to respond to a written request for information from a borrower regarding the mortgage loan Here, Select Portfolio Servicing , Inc has erred by adding {$51000.00} of unreasonable fees or fees for work not performed which should be immediately credited. Also I am requesting that XXXX XXXX XXXX  ( XXXX  ) and XXXX XXXX no longer maintain the property on record nor try to make necessary repairs at this date or future date to rectify the fraudulent activity of the fees added. The family will be responsible for any future repair or work performed and once this error is rectified plan to cure any default once the payoff amount has been corrected.\n\nThank you for taking the time to respond to this Notice of Error within 5 business days. \n\n\n***** PLEASE SEND ALL CORRESPONDENCE TO ***** :","date_sent_to_company":"2021-11-03T04:25:07.000Z","issue":"Trouble during payment process","sub_product":"Conventional home mortgage","zip_code":"XXXXX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"4873938","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.","date_received":"2021-11-03T04:12:40.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["If during a reasonable <em>investigation</em> of a notice of <em>error</em>, a <em>servicer</em> <em>concludes</em> that <em>errors</em> <em>occurred</em> <em>other</em> <em>than</em>, or in addition to, the <em>error</em> or <em>errors</em> alleged by the borrower, the <em>servicer</em> shall correct all such additional <em>errors</em> and provide the borrower with a written notification that describes the <em>errors</em> the <em>servicer</em> identified, the action taken to correct the <em>errors</em>, the effective date of the correction, and contact information, including a telephone number, for further assistance. \n\n5."],"company":["SELECT PORTFOLIO <em>SERVICING</em>, INC."]},"sort":[23.433569,"4873938"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6956979","_score":21.779455,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"This complaint relates to a simple error committed by a merchant on XX/XX/XXXX in the amount of {$100.00}. On XX/XX/XXXX I entered an agreement with XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX as their debt collector. The agreement contained a preauthorized electronic fund transfer agreement, and allowed for varying amounts. On the XXXX of each month XXXX was allowed to debit from my account {$21.00}, on the XXXX of each XXXX {$53.00} ( plus the normal monthly amount ), and a {$25.00} for NSF fees. The agreement, EFTA, and XXXX  XXXX contain no authorization for XXXX to debit any amount, whether varying or otherwise, or in anyway relating to a failure to cancel any contract, on any date other than the XXXX of any particular month. Here, XXXX debited the monthly due, the yearly due, and the NSF fee ( a varying payment of {$100.00} ) on XX/XX/XXXX, rather than on XX/XX/XXXX ; constituting clear and convincing error. On XX/XX/XXXX I contacted Key Bank to dispute the transaction on the above grounds. Key immediately provisionally credited the amount in error, and began investigating. On or about XX/XX/XXXX Key finished its investigation, and planned to reverse the credit on XX/XX/XXXX, finding no error because, \" Cancellation of services was not completed prior to the billing of the disputed transaction. '' However, Key did not properly notify me of the results of its investigation and the date it had scheduled to debit the provisional credit ; I had not received the letter until XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX I called Key because the debit had seemed suspicious as it was not clearly labeled as a reversal. I requested an explanation of Key 's instigation and supporting documents. On XX/XX/XXXX, after having reviewed the explanation and the supporting documents I called Key to reassert the error ; this call lead to a showing of Key 's severe and systemic violation of the EFTA. After much back and forth the first employee ( XXXX ) informed me that there was a {$100.00} debit on XX/XX/XXXX ( the disputed transaction ) AND XX/XX/XXXX ( this debit did not appear on my periodic statement ). The XX/XX/XXXX debit was clearly what actually should have happened, a Preauthorized EFT in accordance with the agreement and EFTA ; rather than the XX/XX/XXXX which was clearly a merchant simply wanting to debit my account in a manner not agreed to in writing. XXXX had clearly realized this information was SUPPOSED to be hidden from me and claimed to have continuously keep \" Checking This ''. After further back and forth I asked to speak to a manager. The Manager claimed the XX/XX/XXXX payment was in fact a Preauthorized EFT, and admitted there was a debit on XX/XX/XXXX and claimed it should be on my periodic statement ; I informed her I had taken a screenshot of my account and the debit most certainly was not on the statement. I quoted to 15 USC 1693f ( e ) ( 2 ) and asked her if Key Bank gives the benefit of the doubt to consumers or to merchants, and she stated merchants. Flabbergasted, I quoted numerous other portions of the contract, EFTA, Reg E, and the documents Key provided and utilized in its initial investigation. After nearly a 2 hour phone call the manager finally agreed that the transaction constituted an error, and that she would REQUEST that the investigation be reopen. After the manager found that an error occurred, Key was clearly required to credit my account the amount in error within 1 day ; rather, a letter was sent to me stating Key \" received a request ... to reopen a previously denied claim ''. Now, 25 days after Key Bank found an error had in fact occurred, Key has yet to correct my account, whether provisionally or otherwise, or inform me that it has actually reopened and STARTED an investigation after my reassertion of error following review of the documents Key used to rely on to determine an error had not occurred. Key Bank 's violations of the EFTA/Reg E are clearly, at a minimum : failure to make an EFTA in a timely manner 15 USC 1693h ( a ) ( 1 ) ; failure to correct the error within one day after it determined an error occurred 15 USC 1693f ( b ) ; failure to provisionally recredit my account, make a good faith investigation, and did not have a reasonable basis for believing my account was not in error 15 USC 1693f ( e ) ( 1 ) ; knowingly and willfully concluding that my account was not in error when such conclusion could not reasonably have been drawn from the evidence available 15 USC 1693f ( e ) ( 2 ) ; an incorrect EFT from my account 15 USC 1693f ( f ) ( 2 ) ; the omission from a periodic statement of an EFT 15 USC 1693f ( f ) ( 3 ) ; my request for additional information 15 USC 1693f ( f ) ( 6 ) ; violations of Reg E 15 USC 1693f ( f ) ( 7 ) ; debiting a Preauthorized EFT on a different date than the one agreed to 12 CFR 1005.11 ( a ) ( vi ) ; failure to promptly investigate whether an error occurred, and complete its investigation in ten days due to its decision not to provisionally recredit my account 12 CFR 1005.11 ( c ) ; failure to notify me of the date the provisional credit would be debited prior to debiting it 12 CFR 1005.11 ( d ) ( 2 ). These violations may relate to its initial investigation or its ( non ) investigation following my reassertion after review of the documents used to rely on 12 CFR 1005.11 ( e ). The manager made clear that these violations are rooted in Key Bank policy and are standard practice at the institution.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-05-10T05:48:23.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"843XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"6956979","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"KEYCORP","date_received":"2023-05-10T04:26:43.000Z","state":"UT","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Problem using a debit or ATM card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Now, 25 days after Key Bank found an <em>error</em> had in fact <em>occurred</em>, Key has yet to correct my account, whether provisionally or otherwise, or inform me that it has actually reopened and STARTED an <em>investigation</em> after my reassertion of <em>error</em> following review of the documents Key used to rely on to determine an <em>error</em> had not <em>occurred</em>."]},"sort":[21.779455,"6956979"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"5923695","_score":21.466465,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"I have been a Chime member for over three years. I have had nothing but a positive experience until XX/XX/XXXX, when my account was hacked, and money was stolen from me. I had previously heard of other members experiencing fraud through Chime, but I refused to accept it. On XX/XX/XXXX, I received a notification from Chime indicating that my app had been accessed from a new location, and a new device. Immediately following that notification, I received another one stating that a transfer in the amount of {$360.00} was made to XXXX. I tried logging into my app shortly after, in hopes of figuring out what had transpired, only to see that I had been completely logged out of my app, and the password was reset, preventing me from logging back in. After this unauthorized transaction and failure to log into the app, I contacted Chime by phone in hopes of having the matter resolved quickly. Instead, I was met with customer service agents who went through the motions of investigating my case. These agents submitted a dispute of the transaction, and in less than 24 hours provided an update indicating, Based on our investigation, we have concluded no error occurred. Therefore, no funds will be credited to your account and this claim is considered closed. Despite providing several screenshots of proof that I did not authorize any payments to any person, and proof that my account was accessed from a different location and device, Chime customer service failed to help me. In all of the years that I have used Chime, I had only used the Pay Friends feature, to make transfers between my fathers account and myself, therefore it is impossible that I would have made any transfers to other individuals. I am still arguing with them in hopes that they will return my funds.","date_sent_to_company":"2022-08-27T16:58:00.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"91324","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"5923695","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Chime Financial Inc","date_received":"2022-08-27T16:35:50.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Problem accessing account"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Instead, I was met with customer <em>service</em> agents who went through the motions of <em>investigating</em> my case. These agents submitted a dispute of the transaction, and in less <em>than</em> 24 hours provided an update indicating, Based on our <em>investigation</em>, we have <em>concluded</em> no <em>error</em> <em>occurred</em>. Therefore, no funds will be credited to your account and this claim is considered closed."]},"sort":[21.466465,"5923695"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18894270","_score":21.144434,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"On XX/XX/year>, I sent a XXXX XXXX transfer of {$230.00} from my XXXX XXXX account ( ending XXXX ) for a service that was promised but never provided. I later determined the transaction appears to have been a scam ( services never delivered ; no refund ). I promptly disputed the transaction with XXXX XXXX and requested an investigation and supporting records. \n\nXXXX XXXX closed my dispute as \" no error occurred '' and refused to re-open it. XXXX XXXX  explanation is that ( 1 ) they attempted to request a \" good-faith return '' through XXXX to the receiving institution ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and the receiving institution declined ; ( 2 ) under \" XXXX rules, '' they can not compel a return ; ( 3 ) XXXX has XXXX no purchase protection '' and works like cash/wire once funds are sent ; and ( 4 ) XXXX XXXX  concluded the transfer was \" authorized '' and not due to an unauthorized transfer, system failure, or other \" error ''. \n\nXXXX XXXX position conflates recoverability with error-resolution compliance. Under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ) and Regulation E, when a consumer reports a potential error, the institution must investigate, determine whether an error occurred, and report the results to the consumer within required timelines. \n\n1. XXXX XXXX described \" investigation '' is primarily a recovery attempt via XXXX. Whether the recipient bank will voluntarily return funds does not determine whether an \" error '' occurred under federal law. EFTA requires an investigation and a determination, not merely a clawback request.\n\n2. The banks conclusion that the transaction was \" authorized '' is conclusory and unsupported. Regulation E defines \" error '' to include an unauthorized electronic fund transfer. XXXX XXXX insists it reviewed evidence and determined the transfer was authorized, but it has not provided the factual basis that supports that conclusion ( e.g., authentication/authorization evidence ). Instead, XXXX XXXX relies on generalized XXXX disclaimers about \" no purchase protection '' which do not satisfy the banks federal statutory duties. \n\n3. XXXX XXXX failed to provide \" documents relied upon '' / meaningful explanation of findings. Regulation E requires a written explanation of findings when the institution determines no error occurred and, upon request, production of the documents the institution relied upon. Instead, XXXX XXXX sent me screenshots/status records indicating \" delivered/no return, '' but those records do not demonstrate authorization. When I requested records supporting the \" authorized '' determination, XXXX XXXX stated that \" system level data, internal security logs, or proprietary fraud monitoring outputs '' may not be disclosed. This is problematic because those are the categories of records that would ordinarily be relied upon to reach an \" authorized '' conclusion. If XXXX XXXX relied on those records, the bank should provide consumer-reportable versions or an adequate explanation of the evidence supporting its determination, rather than refusing disclosure while maintaining a conclusory denial. \n\n4. XXXX XXXX dispute handling appears to be an unfair process that effectively denies Regulation E protections by substituting \" XXXX works like cash '' messaging for the required investigation and substantiated findings. If XXXX XXXX markets or represents consumer protections for fraudulent transfers but then denies claims with conclusory statements and without providing the basis for an authorization determination, that XXXX implicate unfair/deceptive practices under the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. \n\nI requested that XXXX XXXX re-open the dispute and provide a Regulation E-compliant investigation and documentation, including : XXXX. Evidence supporting its \" authorized '' conclusion ( channel used, timestamps, session IDs, device identifiers, IP/geo indicators, XXXX challenges/results XXXX and any anomalous access/risk flags ) XXXX. Recipient token/enrollment history and the basis for \" token not restricted '' findings referenced by XXXX records XXXX XXXX XXXX case notes and the specific steps taken in the investigation beyond the XXXX return request XXXX. A substantive written explanation of findings consistent with Regulation XXXX First Tech refused to re-open and responded that the Regulation XXXX process is \" complete, '' relying largely on XXXX lack of purchase protection and stating some internal security documentation will not be disclosed. \n\nHarm to me : XXXX. Financial loss of {$230.00} XXXX. Significant time and administrative burden spent pursuing basic evidence and a legally compliant error-resolution process XXXX. Ongoing inability to validate the banks \" authorized '' conclusion due to lack of supporting evidence and refusal to provide consumer-reportable documentation","date_sent_to_company":"2026-01-21T17:25:45.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Mobile or digital wallet","zip_code":"98072","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18894270","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"First Technology Federal Credit Union","date_received":"2026-01-21T17:13:03.000Z","state":"WA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["On XX/XX/year>, I sent a XXXX XXXX transfer of {$230.00} from my XXXX XXXX account ( ending XXXX ) for a <em>service</em> that was promised but never provided. I later determined the transaction appears to have been a scam ( <em>services</em> never delivered ; no refund ). I promptly disputed the transaction with XXXX XXXX and requested an <em>investigation</em> and supporting records. \n\nXXXX XXXX closed my dispute as \" no <em>error</em> <em>occurred</em> '' and refused to re-open it."],"product":["Money transfer, virtual currency, or money <em>service</em>"]},"sort":[21.144434,"18894270"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"20859625","_score":20.751598,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"I dispute Wells Fargos XX/XX/XXXX response. The banks response is insufficient, conclusory, and does not resolve my complaint. I dispute both the denial of my claim and Wells Fargos refusal to refund the overdraft fees tied to the disputed activity. \n\nWells Fargo says it completed research, but its letter does not show a reasonable, documented investigation of the disputed transfers. Under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E, once a consumer gives timely notice of an alleged error, the financial institution must investigate the alleged error, determine whether an error occurred, and report the results to the consumer within the required time. If the institution can not complete the investigation within 10 business days, it may use provisional credit, but the investigation still must be concluded within the applicable regulatory period, and the consumer must have full use of the provisionally credited funds during the investigation. 15 U.S.C. 1693f ( a ), ( c ).\n\nWells Fargos response does not provide the factual basis necessary to justify denial. The letter says only that Wells Fargo did not identify evidence that the payment was made by an alternate method, could not locate charges on an alternate Wells Fargo account, and found the disputed transactions consistent with prior undisputed activity. Those are generalized conclusions, not a transaction-specific explanation showing what records were reviewed, what merchant or network data was obtained, what account evidence was compared, or how Wells Fargo determined that the disputed transactions were actually authorized by me. Regulation E requires a real investigation and a written explanation of findings if the bank concludes no error occurred. 12 C.F.R. 1005.11 ( c ), ( d ).\n\nThe CFPBs official commentary also makes clear that a financial institution must begin its investigation promptly upon receipt of an oral notice and may not delay until it receives written confirmation. It also states that if an error occurred, the institution must correct the error, including refunding any fees imposed by the institution, where applicable. 12 C.F.R. Part 1005, Official Interpretations to 1005.11 ( c ).\n\nI also dispute Wells Fargos apparent effort to rely on prior undisputed activity, receipt of benefit, or a broad transaction pattern instead of proving authorization of the disputed transfers. Under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E, consumer liability for unauthorized electronic fund transfers is limited by law, and the bank must comply with Regulation E before imposing liability on the consumer for an unauthorized EFT claim. 15 U.S.C. 1693g ( a ) ; 12 C.F.R. 1005.6 ( b ) ; Official Interpretations to 1005.11 ( b ). \nThe response is also deficient because it does not provide the documentation underlying Wells Fargos determination. If a financial institution determines that no error occurred, it must provide an explanation of its findings, include notice of the consumers right to request the documents relied upon, and, upon request, promptly provide reproductions of the documents it relied on. 15 U.S.C. 1693f ( d ) ; 12 C.F.R. 1005.11 ( d ) ( 1 ). The CFPBs official commentary further states that the institution must provide copies in understandable form. \n\nI am therefore formally requesting that Wells Fargo produce all documents and data it relied upon in denying my claim and reversing the provisional credit, including but not limited to internal claim notes, transaction logs, account comparisons, merchant information, network records, screenshots, and any other material used to conclude that no error occurred. Regulation E expressly provides that those documents must be produced upon request. \n\nI also dispute Wells Fargos refusal to refund the overdraft fees listed in its own response. Wells Fargo identified XXXX overdraft fees of {$35.00} each, totaling {$420.00}. Those fees are : Account ending in XXXX : XXXX payment posted XX/XX/XXXX {$35.00} fee applied XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX posted XX/XX/XXXX {$35.00} fee applied XX/XX/XXXX Account ending in XXXX : XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX posted XX/XX/XXXX {$35.00} fee applied XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX posted XX/XX/XXXX {$35.00} fee applied XX/XX/XXXX XXXX * XXXX XXXX XXXX posted XX/XX/XXXX {$35.00} fee applied XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX {$35.00} fee applied XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX posted XX/XX/XXXX {$35.00} fee applied XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX NJ posted XX/XX/XXXX {$35.00} fee applied XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX posted XX/XX/XXXX {$35.00} fee applied XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX posted XX/XX/XXXX {$35.00} fee applied XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX posted XX/XX/XXXX {$35.00} fee applied XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX  posted XX/XX/XXXX {$35.00} fee applied XX/XX/XXXX That is {$420.00} in overdraft fees identified by Wells Fargo . Wells Fargo also says one {$35.00} courtesy refund was issued on XX/XX/XXXX for the XX/XX/XXXX XXXX transaction, which means at least {$380.00} remains outstanding even under Wells Fargos own accounting. \n\nThese fees should not have been dismissed with a blanket statement about Wells Fargos posting practices. The bank still must explain, transaction by transaction and fee by fee, why each overdraft fee remains valid, especially where the fees were tied to disputed transactions and where Wells Fargo reversed provisional credit after denying the claim. The CFPBs official commentary states that if an error occurred, the institution must correct the error, including refunding fees imposed by the institution where applicable, and that upon debiting provisional credit, the institution may not impose fees for items it is required to honor under 1005.11.\n\nWells Fargos letter also states that it reversed the provisional credit of {$74.00} on XX/XX/XXXX. If Wells Fargo debited provisional credit after concluding no error occurred, Regulation E required a written explanation of findings and notice of my right to request the documents relied upon, and those documents must be provided promptly upon request. 12 C.F.R. 1005.11 ( d ) ( 1 ) - ( 2 ) ; 15 U.S.C. 1693f ( d ).\n\nWells Fargos handling of this matter also appears to raise UDAAP concerns under the Consumer Financial Protection Act. The CFPB may prevent a covered person from engaging in an unfair, deceptive, or abusive act or practice in connection with a consumer financial product or service, and it is unlawful for a covered person to engage in an unfair, deceptive, or abusive act or practice. 12 U.S.C. 5531 ( a ), 5536 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ). An act or practice is unfair where it causes or is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers, the injury is not reasonably avoidable by consumers, and the injury is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or competition. 12 U.S.C. 5531 ( c ). Here, Wells Fargo reversed provisional credit, retained overdraft fees, and provided only a conclusory explanation rather than a transparent, evidence-based explanation of how it determined the disputed transactions were authorized. That caused concrete monetary harm to me in the form of unreimbursed fees and charges, and that harm was not reasonably avoidable once the bank controlled the investigation, the provisional credit decision, and the fee determinations. To the extent Wells Fargo failed to conduct a sufficient investigation, failed to provide a meaningful explanation, or retained fees without adequate support, that conduct appears to raise unfairness concerns under UDAAP.\n\nI am asking CFPB to require Wells Fargo to : 1. Reopen the investigation.\n\n2. Produce all documents and evidence relied upon in denying claim number XXXX and reversing the provisional credit. \n3. Provide a transaction-by-transaction explanation of how Wells Fargo concluded the disputed activity was authorized.\n\n4. Provide a fee-by-fee explanation of why each of the 12 overdraft fees remains valid. \n5. Refund all overdraft fees identified in the letter, totaling {$420.00}, or at minimum refund the outstanding {$380.00} Wells Fargo still appears to owe after the single {$35.00} courtesy refund it claims to have issued. \n6. Confirm whether Wells Fargo fully complied with the timing, investigation, provisional credit, written explanation, and document-production requirements of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E.\n\n7. Evaluate whether Wells Fargos conduct also constitutes an unfair act or practice under the Consumer Financial Protection Act/UDAAP provisions. \n\nMy position is straightforward : Wells Fargo has not shown a sufficient basis to deny my claim, has not provided the records it relied upon, and has not justified retaining the overdraft fees listed in its own response. I request that CFPB continue to pursue this matter and require a substantive response with supporting documentation.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-04-01T20:14:33.000Z","issue":"Problem caused by your funds being low","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"282XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"20859625","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2026-04-01T20:09:33.000Z","state":"NC","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Overdrafts and overdraft fees"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Regulation E requires a real <em>investigation</em> and a written explanation of findings if the bank <em>concludes</em> no <em>error</em> <em>occurred</em>. 12 C.F.R. 1005.11 ( c ), ( d ).\n\nThe CFPBs official commentary also makes clear that a financial institution must begin its <em>investigation</em> promptly upon receipt of an oral notice and may not delay until it receives written confirmation."]},"sort":[20.751598,"20859625"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7220661","_score":20.487917,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX {$150.00} XXXX XXXX {$500.00} XXXX XXXX {$70.00} XXXX XXXX {$750.00} XXXX XXXX {$1000.00} XXXX XXXX {$750.00} XXXX XXXX {$500.00} XXXX XXXX {$500.00} XXXX XXXX {$2000.00} On XX/XX/XXXX I called Chime Member Services and informed them I had been a victim of fraud. I explained I saw the transactions credited from my account and upon noticing them ( payment from phone number to phone number ) I changed my banking password and disabled international transactions on my banking app. \n\nThese amounts were made with fraudulent intent via phone-to-phone transfers that were deducted directly from my checking and were instantly approved as they were all checking transactions. This does not mean I authorized or approved such transactions. Not to mention my checking account was the only account compromised. Not my savings. \n\nI filed a claims report with Chime The report states : \" While the dispute is not eligible for provisional credit issued by Chime , Chime will investigate dispute types that fall under Regulation E ''. \n\n\" The dispute process can take until XX/XX/XXXX. '' \" Check the status of the dispute anytime on Chime. '' On XX/XX/XXXX Chime Member Services informed me that my claim had been denied as \" no error had occurred. '' Chime did not provide documentation or proof of an investigation that concluded the final outcome of this investigation under Regulation E guidelines. \n\nRegulation E outlines electronic funds transfers ( EFT ) under section 1005.6. \nas electronic fund transfer from a consumer 's account initiated by a person other than the consumer without actual authority to initiate the transfer and from which the consumer receives no benefit. \n\nNote : This scam has compromised my funds not only with Chime but other electronic vendors like XXXX XXXX and XXXX by the same person who uses various aliases and phone numbers to seek unauthorized electronic payments.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-07-07T17:04:14.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Mobile or digital wallet","zip_code":"199XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7220661","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Chime Financial Inc","date_received":"2023-07-07T15:22:24.000Z","state":"DE","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["\" The dispute process can take until XX/XX/XXXX. '' \" Check the status of the dispute anytime on Chime. '' On XX/XX/XXXX Chime Member <em>Services</em> informed me that my claim had been denied as \" no <em>error</em> had <em>occurred</em>. '' Chime did not provide documentation or proof of an <em>investigation</em> that <em>concluded</em> the final outcome of this <em>investigation</em> under Regulation E guidelines. \n\nRegulation E outlines electronic funds transfers ( EFT ) under section 1005.6."],"product":["Money transfer, virtual currency, or money <em>service</em>"]},"sort":[20.487917,"7220661"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18025271","_score":19.76154,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"I am filing this complaint regarding XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX systemic failure to comply with the Fair Credit Billing Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1666 ) in its handling of multiple credit card billing disputes involving transactions within the last 120 days. \n\nThese disputes arose during a period in which multiple widely reported data breaches affecting financial institutions, telecommunications providers, and online service platforms materially increased the risk of unauthorized account activity. This context required heightened scrutiny and careful investigation, not summary denial. \n\nI timely disputed multiple charges after determining that the underlying services associated with these transactions were not properly delivered, usable, or accessible. These transactions involved third-party payment processors and custodial wallet services, which require fact-specific, human review, particularly where data security concerns and account compromise risk exist. \n\nInstead of conducting individualized, good-faith investigations as required by federal law, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX boilerplate, conclusory determinations, including statements such as you accepted the amount charged and not enough documentation, without identifying what evidence was reviewed, what documentation was required, or how disputes involving custodial or intermediary services were evaluated. \n\nAt least XXXX dispute was closed as XXXX by XXXX despite no intent to withdraw and without any substantive investigation. Other disputes were declined in rapid succession using identical language, demonstrating a pattern of procedural denial rather than a reasonable investigation, contrary to 15 U.S.C. 1666 ( a ) ( 3 ). \n\nDue to the seriousness of these matters, and in light of the elevated risk environment created by recent data breaches, I took the additional step of filing a police report. XXXX XXXX never requested a copy of this report, never advised that it was required, and never incorporated it into any dispute review prior to declining the claims. The disputes were denied first and only afterward treated as final, effectively preventing the submission of additional documentation. \n\nThis sequence reflects a pre-determined dispute outcome rather than a lawful investigative process and is inconsistent with the Fair Credit Billing Acts requirement that a creditor conduct a reasonable investigation before concluding that no billing error occurred. \n\nFurther, XXXX XXXX handling of these disputes created a chilling effect that discouraged and inhibited me from submitting the remaining disputes within the applicable XXXX billing error window. After repeated premature closures, lack of guidance, and reliance on automated responses, I reasonably believed further submissions would be futile. This conduct interfered with my ability to fully exercise federally protected dispute rights. \n\nI am attaching a transaction summary reflecting the affected charges to demonstrate the scope of disputes impacted by XXXX XXXX dispute-handling practices. \n\nGiven the known data breach environment, the complexity of third-party payment XXXX, and the existence of a police report, I expressly request that this matter receive a manual, substantive investigation by qualified personnel. XXXX verification systems, including e-OSCAR-style processing, are inadequate in these circumstances and do not satisfy the statutory standard of a reasonable investigation. \n\nXXXX XXXX actions appear to constitute procedural non-compliance, not mere disagreement over outcomes, and raise serious concerns regarding whether consumers are being deterred from exercising rights guaranteed under federal law","date_sent_to_company":"2025-12-14T07:26:38.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"23229","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18025271","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","date_received":"2025-12-14T06:25:03.000Z","state":"VA","company_public_response":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This sequence reflects a pre-determined dispute outcome rather <em>than</em> a lawful <em>investigative</em> process and is inconsistent with the Fair Credit Billing Acts requirement that a creditor conduct a reasonable <em>investigation</em> before <em>concluding</em> that no billing <em>error</em> <em>occurred</em>. \n\nFurther, XXXX XXXX handling of these disputes created a chilling effect that discouraged and inhibited me from submitting the remaining disputes within the applicable XXXX billing <em>error</em> window."]},"sort":[19.76154,"18025271"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17803068","_score":19.396349,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"Subject : Complaint Against USAA Federal Savings Bank Improper Denial of Fraud Claim Under Regulation E ( XXXX Scam ) Financial company : USAA Federal Savings Bank Type of product : Checking account / XXXX ( P2P transfer ) Account ending : XXXX Dispute/Claim ID : XXXX -- - What happened On XX/XX/year>, I was the victim of a bank-impersonation scam involving a fraudulent XXXX transfer of {$1000.00} from my USAA checking account. \n\nI received a call from someone who claimed to be from USAAs fraud department. They stated there was suspicious activity on my account and that I needed to follow their instructions to secure my funds. Relying on their representation that they were USAA, I followed their directions. As a result, a XXXX transfer of {$1000.00} was sent from my account to XXXX XXXX ( a recipient controlled by the scammer ). \n\nI did not receive any goods, services, or benefit from this transaction. This was not a legitimate purchase or payment I intended to make to a merchant or known party. It was the result of deception and impersonation of my bank. \n\nI reported the fraud to USAA on XX/XX/year>. USAA opened a dispute and initially issued a temporary/provisional credit for the {$1000.00}. \n\nOn or about XX/XX/year>, USAA sent me a letter stating that they had completed their investigation and were denying my claim. As part of that denial, the provisional credit of {$1000.00} was actually withdrawn twice, resulting in a total negative impact of {$2000.00} instead of just the original {$1000.00} fraudulent transfer. In other words, not only did USAA refuse to permanently restore the original {$1000.00}, but their handling of the provisional credit created an additional {$1000.00} debit to my account. \n\nThis has left me in a worse financial position than before I reported the fraud. \n\n\n-- - What the bank said In a written letter, USAA stated ( paraphrased and quoted ) : They had completed their investigation and determined that no error occurred. \n\nFunds were sent as requested. \n\nThey referenced XXXX Terms of Service and said that the sender is responsible for resolving disputes with the recipient, including for goods or services. \n\nThey stated that the external bank declined to return the funds. \n\nThey concluded the investigation and stated that no further action would be taken and that the temporary credit would be debited from my account. \n\n\nUSAA is treating this as if I voluntarily paid someone for goods/services and am now unhappy, instead of acknowledging it as fraud and a bank-impersonation scam. In addition, USAAs own handling of the provisional credit has effectively resulted in a double withdrawal. \n\n\n-- - Why I believe this violates Regulation E and CFPB guidance This situation is an unauthorized electronic fund transfer ( EFT ) under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ) and Regulation E ( 12 C.F.R. 1005 ).\n\nRegulation E, 12 C.F.R. 1005.2 ( m ) defines an unauthorized electronic fund transfer as a transfer from a consumers account initiated by a person other than the consumer without actual authority and from which the consumer receives no benefit.\n\nIn this case, a third party impersonated my bank, deceived me, and caused the transfer. I received no benefit, and the scammer had no actual authority.\n\nThe CFPBs own guidance/FAQs on electronic fund transfers and P2P payments explain that : A credit-push P2P transfer ( such as a XXXX payment ) is considered an EFT even if initiated by a third party that fraudulently obtained access to a consumers account, and that such a transfer is an unauthorized EFT when done without the consumers actual authority and without benefit to the consumer.\n\nDespite this, USAA denied my claim by : 1. Treating the transaction as if it were a legitimate, authorized payment sent as requested ; 2. Citing XXXX  Terms of Service and saying the sender is responsible and must resolve it with the recipient ; 3. Ignoring the fact that this was a bank-impersonation scam, not a dispute over goods or services ; 4. Failing to correct what appears to be an internal error that caused the provisional credit to be withdrawn twice, resulting in a total of {$2000.00} in debits tied to a {$1000.00} fraudulent transaction. \n\n\n\nXXXX terms of service can not override federal protections under Regulation E. USAAs position appears contrary to EFTA and CFPB interpretations regarding unauthorized EFTs and bank-impersonation scams, and its handling of the provisional credit appears to be an additional error.\n\nAdditionally, under 12 C.F.R. 1005.11 ( b ) ( d ), USAA is required to : Conduct a reasonable investigation of an alleged error ; Determine whether an error occurred ; Provide a provisional credit if they can not complete the investigation within 10 business days ; Correct any bank errors and provide written explanation and, if requested, the documentation used in making its determination.\n\nUSAAs letter is generic and relies on XXXX network response and terms of service, rather than a proper Regulation XXXX analysis of an unauthorized transfer caused by fraud and impersonation, and it does not address the double debit of the provisional credit. \n\n\n-- - What I am asking the CFPB to do I am requesting that the CFPB : 1. Review USAAs handling of my claim under Regulation E/EFTA and CFPB guidance on P2P fraud and bank impersonation scams ; 2. Require USAA to properly treat this as an unauthorized electronic fund transfer, not a goods/services dispute or no error ; 3. Require USAA to refund the original {$1000.00} that was taken from my account as a result of this scam, 4. Require USAA to correct the additional {$1000.00} debit that occurred when the provisional credit was withdrawn twice, so that I am not penalized beyond the original fraudulent amount ; 5. Reverse any related fees or negative consequences applied to my account due to these debits ; 6. Ensure USAA provides me with the documentation and evidence they relied on in denying the claim ( call logs, internal notes, any risk analysis, communications with the receiving bank, etc. ) ; 7. Review whether USAAs general policies and practices concerning XXXX and impersonation scams comply with Regulation E and CFPB guidance.\n\nThis scam has caused me significant financial and emotional stress. I relied on my bank to protect me and to follow federal law, and instead I feel I have been victimized twiceonce by the scammer and then again by the banks refusal to recognize this as fraud and by the double withdrawal of the provisional credit.\n\nThank you for your time and assistance. \n\nName : XXXX XXXX Address : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX, TX XXXX Phone : XXXX Email : XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-21T22:33:51.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Domestic (US) money transfer","zip_code":"786XX","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17803068","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2025-11-21T22:02:13.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["In <em>other</em> words, not only did USAA refuse to permanently restore the original {$1000.00}, but their handling of the provisional credit created an additional {$1000.00} debit to my account. \n\nThis has left me in a worse financial position <em>than</em> before I reported the fraud. \n\n\n-- - What the bank said In a written letter, USAA stated ( paraphrased and quoted ) : They had completed their <em>investigation</em> and determined that no <em>error</em> <em>occurred</em>. \n\nFunds were sent as requested."],"product":["Money transfer, virtual currency, or money <em>service</em>"],"company":["UNITED <em>SERVICES</em> AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION"]},"sort":[19.396349,"17803068"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8563900","_score":19.374445,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"Around XXXX, XXXX I opened a dispute with Bank Credit.Ai in regard several payment came out of my account without my authorization. Acct # : XXXX Transaction Description : : ACH debits by XXXX XXXX Date Error Reported : XX/XX/XXXX Claim Amount : {$320.00} Date Transaction Posted XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX \n\nCred.ai treated this dispute as an error being reported when in fact was an unauthorized used of my Card and/or Bank account XXXX On XX/XX/XXXX they denied the claim based on the statement \" We have completed our investigation, and we have determined that no error occurred. As a result, we have closed your dispute claim. '' That same day I requested all documentation involving the decision to close this claim against me. It took them until XX/XX/XXXX to send the requested documents. Just ONE. This document will be attached as well. Document refers to someones notation for the account \" assuming '' the transaction are correct and no investigation was performed, at ALL. Someone decided to close the claim stating she/he believe this transactions are correct because I did not reported them when they wanted me to report them and missed, I don't know how many opportunities, of phone calls. A direct violation of of Bank practice and state and federal law. \n\nAs stated before, It was brought to my attention theres no documents available for me to review other than internal hearsay notations and someones assumption after looking to my account phone calls history that has nothing to do with the fraudulent charges. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX I emailed them back to reopen the case and start an investigation. 4 months later still haven't heard from this Bank and case still closed without remediation and returned of disputed ( fraudulent ) funds back to my account. \n\nI stopped direct deposit to this account right away. I will not be using this account in daily basis as I did before. I will be submitting complaints to all State and Federal organization about this Bank. Now, let 's go over their responses they used to deny my claim. \n\nFirst assumption to deny my claim. I made several phone calls after 1st transaction in dispute had been posted on my account. When I call Customer Service is about an specific topic and/or issue can not and does not constitute sufficient evidence I should've been aware of any other transaction aside from what I was calling for, therefore, investigation team, can not use this statement to conclude I could've or should've seen the payment at that time. \n\nAssumption number two to deny my claim, they're repaeating themselves about phone calls I had made to customer service and not seeing the transaction and reporting it. That's exactly what happened, I did not see this payments coming through. \n\nAssumption number three, The transactions I was calling for was, in fact, different from the payment is being disputed. For the 3rd time, again, they repeated themselves.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-03-17T06:08:40.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"90029","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8563900","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CRED Technologies dba cred.ai","date_received":"2024-03-17T06:05:51.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Banking errors"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["When I call Customer <em>Service</em> is about an specific topic and/or issue can not and does not constitute sufficient evidence I should've been aware of any <em>other</em> transaction aside from what I was calling for, therefore, <em>investigation</em> team, can not use this statement to <em>conclude</em> I could've or should've seen the payment at that time. \n\nAssumption number two to deny my claim, they're repaeating themselves about phone calls I had made to customer <em>service</em> and not seeing the transaction and reporting it."],"sub_issue":["Banking <em>errors</em>"]},"sort":[19.374445,"8563900"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"10040975","_score":18.234901,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"XX/XX/year> I used the Chime pay anyone feature to send XXXX to my brother. \n\n\n( Way to pay! \nHi XXXX, you just sent {$60.00} for \" Repay '' to XXXX XXXX ) According to the way it's to work, he should have received a text to his phone number which is correct, supposedly providing a link for him to transfer the amount directly to his debit card : ( Did you know you can pay people who dont have a Chime account? Heres how it works : They get a text message or email with a link that brings them to a secure web page.\n\nNext, they use any US debit card to claim their money instantly, and securely. \nTheir money arrives instantly and fee-free. No app signup or download needed from them at all. ) He advised that he never received a text. I contacted Chime to open a dispute. \n\n( Account Number Ending In : XXXX Claim ID : XXXX Dispute Type : Pay Friends - Transfer to Incorrect Recipient Date Error Reported : XXXX Claim Amount : {$60.00} ) My brother and I eventually determined XXXX instead was sent to an account no longer belonging to him, whereas had he received a text based on Chime 's own description of the service there would be no issue. \n\nI provided additional details to Chime which would have immediately cleared the dispute but received in return : ( XXXX XXXX XXXX, This letter is to inform you that we have made a final determination regarding the claim referenced above. As part of our investigation, a review of our systems was performed in addition to information provided during the claim filing process. As applicable, we coordinate with other financial institutions, merchants, and networks as part of the claim review. \n\nBased on our investigation, we have concluded no error occurred. Therefore, no funds will be credited to your account and this claim is considered closed. \nYou may request a copy of the documents we used in determining the final outcome of the investigation. If you have any additional questions or need further assistance, feel free to contact us at any time.\n\nThanks, Chime Disputes Team ) In addition, I requested documents mentioned above and still have yet to receive as of the date of this complaint : ( I want see the documents described also any proof that recipient was sent a text requiring him to transfer the money from the text himself ) I have heard nothing and am still out XXXX. \n\nI am not interested in a cookie-cutter response from Chime associates, I just want them to do the right thing. And by not doing so, they are justifying misleading information. That XXXX is somewhere other than where it is supposed to be. It needs to be returned to me. I sincerely hope this has to go no further for what some deem a relatively small amount of money. However, small amounts like this multiplied by hundreds of customers becomes very profitable. I do like Chime but this I can not accept.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-09-06T18:20:02.000Z","issue":"Other transaction problem","sub_product":"Domestic (US) money transfer","zip_code":"554XX","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"10040975","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Chime Financial Inc","date_received":"2024-09-06T17:29:03.000Z","state":"MN","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["As part of our <em>investigation</em>, a review of our systems was performed in addition to information provided during the claim filing process. As applicable, we coordinate with <em>other</em> financial institutions, merchants, and networks as part of the claim review. \n\nBased on our <em>investigation</em>, we have <em>concluded</em> no <em>error</em> <em>occurred</em>. Therefore, no funds will be credited to your account and this claim is considered closed."],"product":["Money transfer, virtual currency, or money <em>service</em>"],"issue":["<em>Other</em> transaction problem"]},"sort":[18.234901,"10040975"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"2351186","_score":18.211624,"_source":{"product":"Prepaid card","complaint_what_happened":"Executive Summary On Friday XX/XX/XXXX I, XXXX, purchased a {$500.00} VISA Debit Gift Card from XXXX located at XXXX GA XXXX at XXXX EST from the main customer service kiosk. The associated VISA Debit Gift Card account number ( PAN ) is XXXX EXP XX/XX/XXXX CCV XXXX with proxy ID XXXX issued by XXXX under contract with Black Hawk Networks. \n\nOn Friday XX/XX/XXXX I attempted to use the {$500.00} VISA Debit Gift Card referenced above to make a point of sale purchase at XXXX, GA XXXX at approximately XXXX EST, and experienced a card authorization decline at point of sale utilizing card ending in XXXX. \n\nUpon contacting XXXX shortly after experiencing the card authorization decline, at telephone number XXXX, I learned the following facts and reported the card as compromised due to suspected fraud Shortly upon activation of the card at XX/XX/XXXX XXXX EST, the card was registered to a \" XXXX '' in zip code \" XXXX '' via channels unknown, but most likely via XXXX. No IP address information was available when asked. \n\nIt is my understanding and belief that the person registering the VISA Debit Gift Card likely at one time obtained or had an co-conspiring associate gain physical access to the instrument with details of the following data parameters required to register the card. It is my professional judgement an employee of XXXX likely may have been involved in the compromise of the instrument. \n\nFraud case regarding the {$500.00} VISA Debit Gift Card ending in XXXX was filed with card issuing bank, XXXX, at telephone number XXXX with case number XXXX. \n\nVarious individual transactions we performed between {$1.00} and {$490.00} with an aggregate total less than {$500.00} during the XXXX hour on XX/XX/XXXX at the following merchants. These transactions were unauthorized by me, the legitimate card holder. \n\nDispute case was opened with XXXX on Friday XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nCopies of XXXX Police Department report were forwarded to XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nDocumentation and evidence to support claim, including proof of XXXX bank statement screen shot showing I was the legitimate purchaser of the pre-paid debit card, was provided by electronic mail to XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nI was reimbursed for the fraudulent use of this card by XXXX directly on XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX I received a letter from Blackhawk Networks indicating the investigation had been concluded and that \" after further review of the cardholder 's dispute claim we have found no error has occurred. As such, your case is considered resolved and closed ''. This statement is in direct contravention of the consumer protections enumerated in Federal Reserve Board Reg E governing the use of credit / debit / pre-paid card instruments. While I have been made whole by XXXX, a separate and distinct entity from Blackhawk Networks, I find Blackhawk Network 's arbitrary and capricious closing of my dispute case and finding of \" no error has occurred '' to be factually incorrect. I am bringing this matter to the attention of the US Consumer Financial Protection bureau as I am concerned other legitimate consumers may be adversely affected by Blackhawk Network 's arbitrary and capacious closing of REG E dispute claims with findings of \" no error has occurred '' in direct contravention to sworn statements, facts, police reports, etc.","date_sent_to_company":"2017-02-23T22:12:56.000Z","issue":"Unauthorized transactions/trans. issues","sub_product":"General purpose card","zip_code":"303XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"2351186","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Blackhawk Network Holdings Inc.","date_received":"2017-02-18T23:54:07.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["On XX/XX/XXXX I received a letter from Blackhawk Networks indicating the <em>investigation</em> had been <em>concluded</em> and that \" after further review of the cardholder 's dispute claim we have found no <em>error</em> has <em>occurred</em>. As such, your case is considered resolved and closed ''. This statement is in direct contravention of the consumer protections enumerated in Federal Reserve Board Reg E governing the use of credit / debit / pre-paid card instruments."]},"sort":[18.211624,"2351186"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3248439","_score":17.994997,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"On XX/XX/2019 I made a transaction of {$1000.00} through USAA using XXXX XXXX to an individual named XXXX XXXX XXXX ( at least that is the name XXXX XXXX gave me. It could be an alias ) whom I thought it was the Co-owner of a Condo I was supposed to \" rent '' from and I thought at the time to be a trusted person. The other \" owner '' an individual named XXXX XXXX ( again, it could be an alias ) whom I made the supposed \" contract '' with and whom I had contact with, I also thought to be a trusted person. On XX/XX/2019 I made another transfer of {$700.00} through my bank using XXXX XXXX again to XXXX XXXX XXXX to complete the supposed deposit and first months rent for a total of {$1700.00}. \n\nIn the supposed contract, one of the individuals mentioned above named XXXX XXXX and I had made an appointment for XX/XX/2019 for him to hand over the keys to the condo so that I could move in on XX/XX/2019. Time of supposed appointment was for XXXX on that day ( XX/XX/2019 ). When I got to the condo shortly before XXXX on the morning of XX/XX/2019. I waited for at least 40 minutes and XXXX XXXX never showed up. I texted him, called him numerous times between XXXX and the 40 minutes that I waited and never received a response from XXXX XXXX . That's when I realized that I had been scammed. I called USAA shortly after and reported a claim of fraud. On XX/XX/2019, my bank sent me a letter telling me that the claim was being denied because they concluded that there was no fraud made, and that no further action will be taken. \n\nI contacted USAA for a second time on XX/XX/2019 to ask how is it that the bank came to the conclusion of no fraud being committed. I was transferred to a representative named XXXX ( do not recall her last name ). She explained that because I made and authorize the transaction, the investigative only looked at whether I had made the transaction or not. After giving her all the background of what has occurred, the other thing that she suggested that she could do was to submit the case as a dispute rather than a fraud. So, she submitted a claim on my behalf on XX/XX/2019. Ten day later, on XX/XX/2019 USAA sent me an email saying the following : We've completed our investigation and determined an error did not occur for the following reason : XXXX is a personal money transfer service and does not provide purchase protection. The transfer was completed as requested and any dispute must be resolved with the user to whom you sent money to. \n\nHow is it that an institution such as USAA whom I have had many years of trust and confidence, provides a service that does not provide any protection what so ever to its customers? And turns around and wash their hands in the face of criminals using the very service that they provide as a safe option to their customers to transfer money leaving many victims of fraud fend for their selves without any back up from their bank institution.","date_sent_to_company":"2019-05-21T05:00:25.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Other banking product or service","zip_code":"92057","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3248439","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2019-05-21T00:07:06.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","sub_issue":"Problem making or receiving payments"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["She explained that because I made and authorize the transaction, the <em>investigative</em> only looked at whether I had made the transaction or not. After giving her all the background of what has <em>occurred</em>, the <em>other</em> thing that she suggested that she could do was to submit the case as a dispute rather <em>than</em> a fraud. So, she submitted a claim on my behalf on XX/XX/2019."],"company":["UNITED <em>SERVICES</em> AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION"],"sub_product":["<em>Other</em> banking product or <em>service</em>"]},"sort":[17.994997,"3248439"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17598047","_score":17.187363,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"This is my third time filing a complaint against Cash App for intention and fraudulently denying my dispute claim. I have yet to receive my refund and I have yet been given an accurate and valid reason for the denial of my claim dispute other than the \" merchant fulfilled their obligation for goods /services '' ; however, the only evidence given was a receipt of the purchase not confirmation that I was on the plane or if i was denied entry. I shared several screen shots of evidence with the CFPB and Cash App showing that I have contacted the Aviation overseeing the airline and contact VietJet for them to do a thorough investigation. Services were not rendered or fulfilled. The merchant/employees discriminated against me and intentionally denied me boarding despite me being on time and compliant. I shared timestamps and shared the correspondence I had with XXXX to Cash app, yet you demonic imbeciles still refuse to refund me. I will be filing a report against Cash App as well as CFPB because both of you seem to be not taking this matter serious. If it were your money, you'd understand, but soulless people who mad because they gave theirs away for little to nothing are bitter My name is XXXX, and I am a manager with Cash App Support. I am reaching out to you in relation to a complaint you filed on XX/XX/year>, with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. I understand that you have been experiencing issues with dispute claim for {$110.00} and {$73.00} to XXXX completed on XX/XX/year> and XX/XX/year> respectively. Id be happy to assist you with these concerns. \n\nXXXX, I would like to apologize for our closure of your previous CFPB complaint with a response that informed you we addressed your concerns on XX/XX/year>. Upon review, our records show that on that date we sent our response to XXXX email addresses associated with your accountone ending in gmail.com and the other in ucr.edu. As these differ from the email address you provided in your current complaint, it appears you may not have received our prior correspondence. \n\nIn reviewing your case history with us, I see that we did previously assisted you with this issue on XX/XX/year>. For your convenience, I have included a summary of those resolutions below : On XX/XX/year> you contacted Cash App Support filing a dispute claim for {$110.00} to Agoda.com. Your case was escalated to our Account Services team who followed up with you via mobile-app on XX/XX/year>, to notify you that we have reviewed your dispute and concluded that no error occurred. \n\nBased on the information available to us, we have determined that the merchant fulfilled their obligations for the goods/services associated with this transaction. As a result, your dispute has been denied. \n\nYou are entitled to request the documents upon which our denial was based. To initiate this request, please click here ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-12-01T06:36:48.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"75002","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17598047","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Block, Inc.","date_received":"2025-12-01T06:24:01.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Your case was escalated to our Account <em>Services</em> team who followed up with you via mobile-app on XX/XX/year>, to notify you that we have reviewed your dispute and <em>concluded</em> that no <em>error</em> <em>occurred</em>. \n\nBased on the information available to us, we have determined that the merchant fulfilled their obligations for the goods/<em>services</em> associated with this transaction. As a result, your dispute has been denied. \n\nYou are entitled to request the documents upon which our denial was based."]},"sort":[17.187363,"17598047"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17402009","_score":16.779387,"_source":{"product":"Payday loan, title loan, personal loan, or advance loan","complaint_what_happened":"To whom it may concern, My name is XXXX XXXX and as a federally protect consumer I have been violated by LendingPoint LLC for several reasons. On XX/XX/XXXX I contact LendingPoint LLC regarding a payment that was made on XX/XX/XXXX in the amount of {$97.00} for account # XXXX that did not show withdrawn from my debt card ( XXXX ). According to LendingPoint LCC rep XXXX ( XXXX? ) he stated that payment for {$97.00} was submitted to a different bank account ( XXXX ) and that payment was denied, I immediately paid the amount again for {$97.00} for account # XXXX, and requested that the previous payment be investigated because I know I used debt card ( XXXX ), and that bank account it was submitted to no longer existed, and it had to be computer error or some kind of computer glitch. After not hearing back from LendingPoint LLC within the XXXX time frame of what was given to me, I contacted LendingPoint LLC again on XX/XX/XXXX around XXXX XXXX  I first spoke to XXXX, and then was transferred to XXXX ( team lead ), about my first complaint and all of these phone calls Im receiving about the late payment. Again, nothing was presented or acknowledged about my concerns as a consumer, XXXX was rude, she insisted on speaking to me about a late payment, but nothing about the XXXX errors that was made on LendingPoint LLC portal. During the same time, I also noticed another error with the same payment of {$97.00} that was made on XX/XX/XXXX for account # XXXX, it showed applied to my other account # XXXX, which was incorrect! I explained to XXXX XXXX who expressed no care ) that my payment for {$97.00} on XX/XX/XXXX was applied to the wrong account, so I filed another complaint to add to the previous complaint so this can be fix. Of course no one contacted me regarding both complaints, I only received phone calls about a late payment, but nothing about my complaints in correcting the {$97.00} applied to the wrong account # XXXX! On XX/XX/XXXX I called LendingPoint LLC again, on this day I spoke to XXXX people XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX ( a supervisor ). XXXX stated that someone called me on XX/XX/XXXX which I didnt believe him because my phone did not show no call or any missed from that day. XXXX also stated that he could not find any records, or no phone calls that show I spoke to someone on XX/XX/XXXX, again this is a lie, unless someone deleted that call and that complaint. This entire issue has been a nightmare with LendingPoint LLC staff, on top of everything else I got going on in my life and the world, who need this! This is terrible business that I have to go back and forth with LendingPoint about my account # XXXX not being handled correctly! Instead of, LendingPoint LLC reps helping with this matter, their only concern was to judge and ridicule me about a late payment! None of LendingPoints LLC reps, team lead, or supervisor, showed no concern, no empathy, no apologizes, just plain rudeness. I have been violated under : Electronic Fund Transfer Act- 12 CFR 1005.33 - Procedures for resolving errors ( a ) ( v ) The sender 's request for documentation required by 1005.31 or for additional information or clarification concerning a remittance transfer, including a request a sender makes to determine whether an error exists under paragraphs ( a ) ( 1 ) ( i ) through ( iv ) of this section, and ( b ) Notice of error from sender ( 1 ) Timing ; contents. A remittance transfer provider shall comply with the requirements of this section with respect to any oral or written notice of error from a sender that : ( iii ) Indicates why the sender believes an error exists and includes to the extent possible the type, date, and amount of the error, except for requests for documentation, additional information, or clarification described in paragraph ( a ) ( 1 ) ( v ) of this section. 12 CFR 1005.11 Procedures for resolving errors ( a ) ( vii ) The consumer 's request for documentation required by 1005.9 or 1005.10 ( a ) or for additional information or clarification concerning an electronic fund transfer, including a request the consumer makes to determine whether an error exists under paragraphs ( a ) ( 1 ) ( i ) through ( vi ) of this section. ( b ) Notice of error from consumer ( 1 ) Timing ; contents. A financial institution shall comply with the requirements of this section with respect to any oral or written notice of error from the consumer that : ( iii ) Indicates why the consumer believes an error exists and includes to the extent possible the type, date, and amount of the error, except for requests described in paragraph ( a ) ( 1 ) ( vii ) of this section. And ( c ) Time limits and extent of investigation ( XXXX ) Ten-day period. A financial institution shall investigate promptly and, except as otherwise provided in this paragraph ( c ), shall determine whether an error occurred within XXXX business days of receiving a notice of error. The institution shall report the results to the consumer within three business days after completing its investigation. The institution shall correct the error within one business day after determining that an error occurred.\n\nUnder 15 U.S. Code 1693f - Error resolution ( a ) Notification to financial institution of error if a financial institution, within sixty days after having transmitted to a consumer documentation pursuant to section 1693d ( a ), ( c ), or ( d ) of this title or notification pursuant to section 1693d ( b ) of this title, receives oral or written notice in which the consumer ( 3 ) sets forth the reasons for the consumers belief ( where applicable ) that an error has occurred, the financial institution shall investigate the alleged error, determine whether an error has occurred, and report or mail the results of such investigation and determination to the consumer within ten business days. The financial institution may require written confirmation to be provided to it within ten business days of an oral notification of error if, when the oral notification is made, the consumer is advised of such requirement and the address to which such confirmation should be sent. A financial institution which requires written confirmation in accordance with the previous sentence need not provisionally recredit a consumers account in accordance with subsection ( c ), nor shall the financial institution be liable under subsection ( XXXX ) if the written confirmation is not received within the ten-day period referred to in the previous sentence. ( b ) Correction of error ; interest If the financial institution determines that an error did occur, it shall promptly, but in no event more than XXXX business day after such determination, correct the error, subject to section XXXX of this title, including the crediting of interest where applicable. ( d ) Absence of error ; finding ; explanation If the financial institution determines after its investigation pursuant to subsection ( a ) or ( c ) that an error did not occur, it shall deliver or mail to the consumer an explanation of its findings within XXXX business days after the conclusion of its investigation, and upon request of the consumer promptly deliver or mail to the consumer reproductions of all documents which the financial institution relied on to conclude that such error did not occur. The financial institution shall include notice of the right to request reproductions with the explanation of its findings. 15 U.S. Code 1692 ( a ) Abusive practices There is abundant evidence of the use of abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt collection practices by many debt collectors. Abusive debt collection practices contribute to the number of personal bankruptcies, to marital instability, to the loss of jobs, and to invasions of individual privacy. \nAnother unhealthy issue I experienced with LendingPoint LLC were the extreme volume of calls I received regarding a late payment, but no calls came through regarding my complaints. On XX/XX/XXXX the same day I spoke with XXXX ( a supervisor ) regarding those complaints, I gave him a verbal consent to place me on the do not call list, however I still received XXXX phones calls on XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX after I gave my verbal consent, this is a violation under 12 CFR 1006.6 - Communications in connection with debt collection. Whats really bothersome, is that the phone call I received on XX/XX/XXXX was the same rep XXXX ( XXXX ) I spoke to on XX/XX/XXXX about the payment error and when I made that first complaint. I asked are you calling me about my complaint, he said no its about my late payment, then he hung up. After that call, I immediately contact LendingPoint LLC around XXXX XXXX  spoke to XXXX, who then transferred me to XXXX who hung the phone up on me, I immediately called back spoke to rep XXXX who transferred me to XXXX, while again explaining the problem she hung up on me too! Both of these calls were less than XXXX minutes ( I have proof to show these calls ). I know I presented myself on each call, calm with a respectable approach. This is why filed those complaints ; theres no way on this earth that I should be treated like this or have experienced this type of behavior from these so-call business customer service professional. This is a violation under 1006.14 Harassing, oppressive, or abusive conduct- ( a ) In general. A debt collector must not engage in any conduct the natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress, or abuse any person in connection with the collection of a debt, including, but not limited to, the conduct described in paragraphs ( b ) through ( h ) of this section. ( b ) Repeated or continuous telephone calls or telephone conversations ( 1 ) In general. In connection with the collection of a debt, a debt collector must not place telephone calls or engage any person in telephone conversation repeatedly or continuously with intent to annoy, abuse, or harass any person at the called number. ( 2 ) Telephone call frequencies ; presumptions of compliance and violation. ( i ) Subject to the exclusions in paragraph ( b ) ( 3 ) of this section, a debt collector is presumed to comply with paragraph ( b ) ( 1 ) of this section and FDCPA section 806 ( 5 ) ( 15 U.S.C. 1692d ( 5 ) ) if the debt collector places a telephone call to a particular person in connection with the collection of a particular debt neither : ( B ) Within a period of seven consecutive days after having had a telephone conversation with the person in connection with the collection of such debt. The date of the telephone conversation is the first day of the seven-consecutive-day period. 15 U.S. Code 1692d - Harassment or abuse ( 5 ) Causing a telephone to ring or engaging any person in telephone conversation repeatedly or continuously with intent to annoy, abuse, or harass any person at the called number. \nI XXXX XXXX is truly aware that I owe LendingPoint LLC, and although I am a dislocated worker, I still have been faithfully paying LendingPoint LLC ( within the 30 days time-frame )! Theres no way, I the consumer should have experienced this type of behavior from LendingPoint LLC staff, this has affected me in so many ways mentally, emotionally, and spiritually, something must be done about this ASAP! I have enclosed documentation to show as of today the error still havent been taken care of, which this will show up again on my credit report as 30 days past due!!!","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-21T05:37:13.000Z","issue":"Problem when making payments","sub_product":"Installment loan","zip_code":"27610","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17402009","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"LendingPoint Holdings LLC","date_received":"2025-11-21T04:52:28.000Z","state":"NC","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["of the consumer promptly deliver or mail to the consumer reproductions of all documents which the financial institution relied on to <em>conclude</em> that such <em>error</em> did not <em>occur</em>."]},"sort":[16.779387,"17402009"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17897644","_score":16.725376,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"In XX/XX/XXXX, I used my Chase business credit card ( last XXXX : [ XXXX ] ) to pay a merchant called XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) for an e-commerce automation service package. The key transactions on XX/XX/XXXX were for {$3000.00} and {$5900.00}, processed through the merchants payment gateway.\n\nAfter working with the merchant, I concluded that they did not provide the contracted services and I disputed the charges with Chase. Over the next several months in XXXX, I provided Chase with extensive documentation, including the written service agreement and evidence that the merchant failed to perform core obligations ( such as order management, fulfillment, and customer service ). Chase opened multiple disputes under reference numbers including XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX. \n\nDuring the dispute process, I saw credits appear on my Chase business credit card account that seemed to correspond to these charges. However, those credits were later reversed. The net result is that I ultimately did not receive a lasting refund for the purchase. My account statements now reflect that I was recharged for the full disputed amounts and received no permanent credit for either the {$3000.00} or the {$5900.00} transaction. \n\nMore recently, the merchant shared with me a screenshot from its payment processor that lists both XX/XX/XXXX transactions and the outcomes of the chargebacks. In that processor record, the {$3000.00} transaction is marked as Won and the {$5900.00} transaction is marked as Loss for the merchant. My understanding is that when the merchants processor shows results of Won and Loss on the merchant side, it means the merchant lost those chargebacks and that funds for both transactions should have been permanently returned to my cardholder account. \n\nThis is inconsistent with what actually happened on my Chase account. Although I briefly saw credits during the dispute process, they were removed, and I ended up with no refund for the entire purchase. My current Chase business credit card history does not show any final credits offsetting the {$3000.00} and {$5900.00} charges. \n\nSince my dispute, I have also learned that other customers reported similar experiences with XXXX  XXXX XXXX and related entities. There are multiple public complaints online describing the same pattern of large upfront charges, minimal or no delivery of the promised services, and refusal to issue refunds. My understanding is that XXXX XXXX XXXX  is no longer operating as an active business. I mention this to highlight that my case does not appear to be an isolated incident, and that Chase may be handling disputes from other cardholders involving the same merchant. \n\nBecause the disputed amounts were never permanently refunded, my outstanding balance on the Chase business card remained significantly higher than it would have been if the credits had stayed. This contributed to financial strain on my business, and I was eventually unable to keep up with the payments on this card. As a result, the account was closed and my business credit has been negatively affected. If the disputed amounts had remained credited to my account as the merchants processor record suggests, I believe I would have been in a better position to manage the remaining balance and avoid the account closure. \n\nI am submitting this complaint so that the CFPB can request that Chase : Investigate and explain why the merchants processor records show the {$3000.00} and {$5900.00} chargebacks as losses for the merchant while no permanent credits exist on my account ; Determine whether the credits related to these disputes were reversed in error ; and If an error occurred, correct it by reissuing the appropriate credits for the full disputed amounts, adjusting any associated interest and fees, and reviewing any negative consequences to my account status or business credit that resulted from this situation.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-12-09T21:19:42.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"19426","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17897644","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","date_received":"2025-12-09T21:01:37.000Z","state":"PA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I am submitting this complaint so that the CFPB can request that Chase : <em>Investigate</em> and explain why the merchants processor records show the {$3000.00} and {$5900.00} chargebacks as losses for the merchant while no permanent credits exist on my account ; Determine whether the credits related to these disputes were reversed in <em>error</em> ; and If an <em>error</em> <em>occurred</em>, correct it by reissuing the appropriate credits for the full disputed amounts, adjusting any associated interest and fees, and reviewing any"]},"sort":[16.725376,"17897644"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3154199","_score":16.655113,"_source":{"product":"Credit card or prepaid card","complaint_what_happened":"I purchased business educational programs, XXXX   XXXX and XXXX XXXX from XXXX XXXX with charges over a few months. There are 4 charges that I am disputing because I received absolutely nothing, no materials or services for the charges. The charges, totalling {$37000.00}, were posted to a Chase Bank Visa card as follows : XX/XX/XXXX - {$9000.00} for XXXX Payments XXXX XX/XX/XXXX - {$10000.00} for XXXX Payments XXXX XX/XX/XXXX - {$10000.00} for XXXX Payments XXXX XX/XX/XXXX - {$8600.00} for XXXX Payments XXXX. \nThe educational programs advertised to include teaching materials, life time access to made-for-me marketing materials ( e-mails, ebook, sale support, life time access to XXXX XXXX websites, continuous training, follow up, etc ) and prepaid XXXX meetings at a luxury resort in XXXX XXXX and XXXX. I received absolutely nothing for these charges. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX the FTC appointed a Receiver, XXXX XXXX XXXX who froze the XXXX XXXX company and its subsidiaries, all websites, telephone numbers and company assets pending investigation which concluded the company was a fraudulent operation resulting in permanent dissolution of the company that was deemed to be a scam. There was no access to the former XXXX XXXX merchant preventing me from any direct negotiations re these charges. Thus, I contacted Chase Bank requesting a refund of these charges. I provided Chase Bank with the links for the FTC actions as listed below. \n1a. Receiverships Appointment : XXXX XXXX XXXX 1. Initial Order : XXXX XXXX XXXX 2. Complaint : XXXX XXXX XXXX 3. Temporary XXXX XXXX : XXXX XXXX XXXX   4. An Article on the FTC website www.ftc.gov : XXXX Chase initially posted temporary refunds for the disputed charges pending further investigation. On XX/XX/XXXX I was notified by Chase that my dispute of the {$9000.00} charge had been resolved. They said they had discussed my claim with the merchant and based on information from me and the merchant and the time passed since charges and dispute, concluded the merchant was unwilling to credit my account and that the charges would remain on my account. As there was no possible means of contacting the merchant after the FTC took over in XXXX, the bank lied about discussions with the merchant. \nOn XX/XX/XXXX I received a letter from Chase stating that their investigation had concluded that I received benefits for the charges on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, Furthermore, that I had notified them that the charges on XXXX/XXXX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX were valid transactions. Once again Chase was fabricating answers that were untruthful, I had received NOTHING for any of the 4 charges and I had never told them the transactions were valid. \nI responded by rejecting their decision initially telephonically and when it became apparent the bank was not paying attention to what I was saying in writing on XX/XX/XXXX. The points I made were 1. The FTC findings and closure of XXXX XXXX declare the transactions as a scam. Is CHASE Bank disputing the FTC findings? \n2. There was no merchant access due to FTC actions and thus, no one with whom I could dispute the charges nor with whom the bank could have evaluated the validity of the charges. \n3. I have not received any goods or services at all for the programs I purchased which were XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX. These programs were advertised as including teaching materials, marketing tools, XXXX   meetings and related materials. \n4. In fact, I received absolutely no products or services of any kind for the charges.\n\n5. The facile, and frankly insulting, definition that if I provided the card details to the merchant it was not a fraud despite the FTC finding that the merchant was running a scam operation. I am disputing these charges because I received nothing for them. \n6. Finally, other Affiliate Marketers of XXXX XXXX known to me personally, have received permanent credits for charges they made on their CHASE cards. Why is my account being selected for discriminatory action that is inconsistent with the banks actions on the same question for other clients. \n7. XXXX XXXX and XXXX have given me permanent credits for similar charges that I made for XXXX XXXX products and services based on the findings and actions of the FTC with respect to XXXX XXXX. \nI concluded with the following questions : a ) WHY IS CHASE BANK TREATING MY REQUEST FOR DISPUTE OF THE CHARGES DIFFERENTLY THAN OTHER CHASE BANK CUSTOMERS. \nb ) FURTHERMORE, WHY IS CHASE BANK NOT ACCEPTING THE FTC FINDINGS IN MY CASE WHEN MY OTHER BANK AND XXXX XXXX HAVE. Social media is full of comments and reports of multiple financial institutions refunding these charges. \n\nChase responded in writing on XX/XX/XXXX informing me that they had re-examined the matter and confirmed that the transactions were valid and would stay on my account. \nAnother letter from Chase on XX/XX/XXXX stated that the transactions were valid because I provided my card information and authorized the transactions. That I had received services prior to the FTC action to close XXXX XXXX once again ignoring my statement that I had received no services. \nI replied once again rejecting their findings in fact and challenging the absurd definition that a fraud could only be if someone other than myself used my card, I repeated that I was claiming refunds based on receipt of zero products or services, not on the charges being fraudulent. That terminology came from the FTC not from me. \nChase sent a couple more letters stating the same thing, namely that the charges were valid and I was responsible for them. \nFurther attempts to talk with the relevant Chase Dispute staff resulted in direct insults to me when the supervisor claimed to be unable to understand what I was saying even though my English ( mother tongue ) was better than hers and she had an accent. This farce was witnessed by the local Chase branch deputy manager from whose office the call was made. \nI wrote again on XX/XX/XXXX reiterating the position, pointing out that they had ignored the points refuting their position in my previous correspondence. In a letter from Chase on XX/XX/XXXX they had said that they would not reply or respond to any further requests from me as they had done all they can do to assist me. In my XX/XX/XXXX memorandum I charged that the questions I had posed in previous correspondence had been ignored and therefore should be considered new information. I received a reply on XX/XX/XXXX stating that they considered the transactions valid, that no billing error had occurred and that the charges would remain on my account. They did not address the apparent discrimination against me by subjecting me to different treatment for the same charges for which other clients of Chase had had received refunds. Nor did they provide any response to my charge that they were in fact supporting a documented scam operation per the FTC against one of their clients, thus providing support to criminals against a US citizen.","date_sent_to_company":"2019-02-16T18:29:07.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"33139","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3154199","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","date_received":"2019-02-16T18:14:06.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I received a reply on XX/XX/XXXX stating that they considered the transactions valid, that no billing <em>error</em> had <em>occurred</em> and that the charges would remain on my account. They did not address the apparent discrimination against me by subjecting me to different treatment for the same charges for which <em>other</em> clients of Chase had had received refunds."]},"sort":[16.655113,"3154199"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3277402","_score":16.654211,"_source":{"product":"Credit card or prepaid card","complaint_what_happened":"I want to begin by saying i am making this complaint because of the handling of my 2 other complaints about Card Corporation ( Card.com ) finding no errors after investigations. \n1.Complaint filed XX/XX/XXXX : XXXX Closed company reaccredited my account after reinvestigating they found errors 2.Complaint filed XX/XX/XXXX : XXXX Pending I am filing this complaint because I'm not sure if just filing complaints about companies not reimbursing consumers for unauthorized charges will cause the CFPB to look at the violations against EFTA and Regulation E directly. \nI am asking the CFPB to look at Card.com for violations of Regulation E : Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1693 et seq. ). \nThe first dispute filed XX/XX/XXXX complaint filed XX/XX/XXXX relates to the below regulations. \n\nLiability of Consumers for Unauthorized Transfers 12 CFR 1005.6, ( 71 Fed. Reg. 1638, 1653 ( Jan. 10, 2006 ) )., ( Comment 1005.6 ( b ) -3 ) *A consumer may be liable for an unauthorized EFT ( defined in 12 CFR 1005.2 ( m ) ) depending on when the consumer notifies the financial institution and whether an access device was used to conduct the transaction *The extent of the consumers liability is determined solely by the consumers promptness in notifying the financial institution The second dispute filed XX/XX/XXXX complaint filed XX/XX/XXXX relates to below regulations. \nPreauthorized Transfers 12 CFR 1005.10 ( 12 CFR 1005.10 ( b ), ( Comment 1005.10 ( b ) -2 ). \n*Preauthorized transfers from a consumers account may only be authorized by the consumer in writing and signed or similarly authenticated by the consumer ( 12 CFR 1005.10 ( b ) ). Signed, written authorizations may be provided electronically, subject to the E-Sign Act ( Comment 1005.10 ( b ) -5 ).  In all cases, the party that obtains the authorization from the consumer must provide a copy to the consumer. If a third party payee fails to obtain an authorization in writing or fails to provide a copy to the consumer, the third party payee and not the financial institution has violated Regulation E (  Comment 1005.10 ( b ) -2 ). \n\n*If a preauthorized transfer from a consumers account varies in amount from the previous transfer under the same authorization or the preauthorized amount, either the financial institution or the designated payee must send to the consumer a written notice, at least 10 days before the scheduled transfer date, of the amount and scheduled date of the transfer ( 12 CFR 1005.10 ( d ) ( 1 ) ). The consumer may elect to receive notice only when the amount varies by more than an agreed amount or falls outside a specified range ( 12 CFR 1005.10 ( d ) ( 2 ) ). The range must be an acceptable range that the consumer could reasonably anticipate ( Comment 1005.10 ( d ) ( 2 ) -1 ). The financial institution does not violate Regulation E if the payee fails to provide sufficient notice ( Comment 1005.10 ( d ) -1 ). \n\n\n\n\n\nBoth disputes and complaints relates to the below regulation Procedures for Resolving Errors 12 CFR 1005.11 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( vii ), ( d ) ( 1 & 2 ), ( e ) *If the financial institution determines that no error occurred or that an error occurred in a different manner or amount from that described by the consumer, the financial institution must mail or deliver a written explanation of its findings within three business days after concluding its investigation. The explanation must include a notice of the consumers rights to request the documents upon which the financial institution relied in making its determination ( 12 CFR 1005.11 ( d ) ). \n*Upon debiting a provisionally credited amount, the financial institution must notify the consumer of the date and amount of the debit and of the fact that the financial institution will honor ( without charge ) checks, drafts, or similar paper instruments payable to third parties and preauthorized debits for five business days after transmittal of the notice. The financial institution need honor only items that it would have paid if the provisionally credited funds had not been debited. Upon request from the consumer, the financial institution must promptly mail or deliver to the consumer copies of documents upon which it relied in making its determination ( 12 CFR 1005.11 ( d ) ( 2 ) ) *If a financial institution has fully complied with the investigation requirements, it generally does not need to reinvestigate if a consumer later reasserts the same error. However, it must investigate a claim of error asserted by a consumer following receipt of information provided pursuant to 12 CFR 1005.11 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( vii ) ( 12 CFR 1005.11 ( e ) ). \n\n\n\n\n\n\nMy first complaint filed XX/XX/XXXX was made when after the investigation of dispute file XX/XX/XXXX for unauthorized EFT ( defined in 12 CFR 1005.2 ( m ) ) was concluded and Card.com determined no error were made and debited my account {$310.00} dollars. \nI did not receive a written explanation of its findings within three business days after concluding its investigation. I have not received a written explanation to date XX/XX/XXXX When I called Card.com on XX/XX/XXXX the next business day after my account was debited I made the request twice to an employee and supervisor fot copies of documents upon which it relied in making its determination ( 12 CFR 1005.11 ( d ) ( 2 ) ) I have never received any copies or documentation to date 6/27/18 After I sent  Card.com excerpts of the EFTA defining unauthorized EFT and that the proper notice was provided and the fact the Card.com fraud department was the one that originally notified me and then i still notified Card.com verbally and in writing with time consternates of a stolen access device when my access device was not stolen and I wasnt subject to the time constraints I requested verbally and in written request to reinvestigate a claim of error following receipt of information provided pursuant to 12 CFR 1005.11 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( vii ) ( 12 CFR 1005.11 ( e ) ). Card.com refused to reinvestigate I then filed a  complaint After CFPB notified Card.com of complaint Card.com promptly reinvestigated claim and found errors they previously could not find and credited my account on XX/XX/XXXX i have received written explanation of the reversal upon finding errors. I received such documentation one on XX/XX/XXXX post marked XX/XX/XXXX date on letter XX/XX/XXXX confirming credit of {$20.00} then i received a second letter on XX/XX/XXXX post marked XX/XX/XXXX and date on letter XX/XX/XXXX confirming 6 more credits after reversal of decision. \nOn a dispute claim previously investigated and finding no errors they miraculously found 6 errors. They site through additional information i provided. I provided Card.com : 1.information from  EFTA 2.A police report that wasn't required 3.Sworn statement of fact swearing i did not authorize the charges On XX/XX/XXXX my former Electrical provider debited my account for {$620.00} with out my consent, authorization or preauthorization. I switch service to another provider on XX/XX/XXXX due to being unable to pay my bill after Card.com deducted {$310.00} for my account which was earmarked for electric bill. I could not get ahold of my provider XXXX XXXX  after charge was made. \n\nI filed a dispute with Card.com on XX/XX/XXXX for unauthorized EFT ( defined in 12 CFR 1005.2 ( m ) )  and/or not giving consent for preauthorization. I explained in order to pay my bill I have register my debt card but always used it for 1 time payment and never authorized {$620.00} at any time. I waited until XX/XX/XXXX to call Card.com on XX/XX/XXXX ( 10 business days ) I wanted to know why I havent received a credit for {$620.00} and was that investigation was concluded and no errors were found. Stated the merchant verified the charge.I have spoken with the first employee, her supervisor, a manager and emailed XXXX XXXX Operations Manager, XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX had a anther woman call me and leave a message. Everyone I have spoken to or left a message repeat the same information as if they are reading a script. Card.com has investigated your claim and no errors have been found and that decision is final.and a written explanation has been sent Its XX/XX/XXXX and I have not received a written explanation as required i have requested to each person and in email for copies of documents upon which it relied in making its determination ( 12 CFR 1005.11 ( d ) ( 2 ) ). \n\nI have been in contact with the merchant whom made the charge. They are claim I signed up for XXXX recurring payments. I told them your saying I set up for recurring payment during the same phone call of which i was refused help when I couldn't afford the amount due and then informed you I would need to switch service providers. Your claiming I signed for a recurring payment with a company I was no longer a customer with? I have asked for copies of XXXXXXXX XXXX signed written consent for preauthorization to debit my account. They dont have such document. But I shouldnt of had to ask for that documentation. Would that not be included in Card.com good faith investigation? \n\nI have made Card.com aware of Everything I stated in this complaint and they still refuse to follow the EFTA and Regulation E rules and regulations. I can only conclude I an not an isolated case. They have not followed the minimum requirements of the before mention regulation on separate disputes with in a 30day window. I would be willing to bet they are conducting their investigations in such a manner with every dispute. I shudder to imagine how may of their customer have not been reimbursed for charges they are rightful due under the protection of the EFTA. \n\n\nI have attached saved pages from my XXXX XXXX account the payment methode page showing the cards i ha register when making payments the XXXX page blank because i never set it up if i had set it up my information would be filled in I sent my billing history showing every payment ever made was ontime payment except the final that is recuring The final bill i saved from their site because i was never sent one. it show the payment method as XXXX and payment made on XX/XX/XXXX even thought payment wasnt due until XX/XX/XXXX i never thought my habit of not paying bills on time would be helpful but look at the billing history i sent and ask yourself is paying his bill 5 days early something my history supports? \nI was able to find out XXXX had no written consent get copies of my account documents with in 3 hours on a saturday why couldnt Card.com get it in 10 days","date_sent_to_company":"2019-06-17T13:40:37.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase or transfer","sub_product":"General-purpose prepaid card","zip_code":"75180","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3277402","timely":"No","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CARD Corporation","date_received":"2019-06-17T12:39:17.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase or transfer"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Both disputes and complaints relates to the below regulation Procedures for Resolving <em>Errors</em> 12 CFR 1005.11 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( vii ), ( d ) ( 1 & 2 ), ( e ) *If the financial institution determines that no <em>error</em> <em>occurred</em> or that an <em>error</em> <em>occurred</em> in a different manner or amount from that described by the consumer, the financial institution must mail or deliver a written explanation of its findings within three business days after <em>concluding</em> its <em>investigation</em>."]},"sort":[16.654211,"3277402"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"2933548","_score":16.369553,"_source":{"product":"Credit card or prepaid card","complaint_what_happened":"On or about XX/XX/XXXX, I made reservations to rent a car on XXXX for the date of XX/XX/XXXX, to be returned on XX/XX/XXXX, for a daily rate of {$32.00} and unlimited miles. ( See Exhibits 2-4 ). At the time of delivery ( pick up ), I signed a rental agreement for TIME & MILAGE for  the same price of my reservation ( {$32.00} x 4 days = {$120.00} ) with a total estimation of {$170.00} with tax. ( Exhibit 15 ). Although, the signed agreement did have a miscellaneous ( Mis. ) rate at {$.00}, that was later construed as mileage, the signed agreement is significantly different from the reservation agreement which constitutes Bait Advertising pursuant to Code of Federal Regulation ( CFR ) Part 238. \n\nOnce I returned the rental car on XX/XX/XXXX, I was charged a mileage charge of {$.00} per mile with 600 miles included for a charge of {$560.00}, contrary to both the rental reservation agreement and the signed agreement. ( See Exhibit 16 ). Thereafter, I contacted the merchant ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) who told me to email them the reservation agreement and they will made the warranted adjustment. ( See Exhibits 1-6 ). Upon receipt of the merchants documents ( exhibits 9-10 ), ( Bank of America [ BOA ] ) concluded that no error had occurred. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I contacted my insuring credit card company ( BOA ) who began an investigation into the Merchants deceptive practices. ( Exhibit 7 ). After a scant review by BOA, it concluded that no billing error occurred despite a billing error was not in dispute. ( Exhibit 11 ). After a telephone conversation with BOA, it requested supported document from me to begin a more thorough review. ( Exhibits 13-19 ). On XX/XX/XXXX, BOA indicate to me that it had completed its review and could only credit me {$390.00} because the merchant have the right to receive payment for any services that were rendered ; contrary to its previously completed findings. ( Exhibit 20 ). On XX/XX/XXXX,  BOA contended again that it had completed its investigation and concluded that the amount billed by XXXX was correct. ( Exhibit 22-28 ). After a telephone conversation with BOA, I submitted additional argument and documents in support of the disputed charge. ( Exhibits 29-33, 15-18 ). \n\nAt the same time I was litigating ( disputing ) mileage charges against the shyster ( XXXX  ), where I was disputing highway toll charges simultaneously and provided additional arguments and documents simultaneous. Id. On XX/XX/XXXX, I received another decision from BOA indicating that it had re-examined my claim and arbitrarily indicated that they were unable to credit by account for the disputed amount because information was not received timely which is untrue as all information was timely submitted. ( Exhibit 34 ). Again, after a telephone call with BOA they indicated that I was unable to produce nothing ( no evidence ) that I was to be charged unlimited mileage. No time did they refer to any time guidelines which is nothing more than guise to circumvent that XXXX are engage in bogus practices. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I resubmitted the same evidence I previously submitted refuting the bogus reservation agreement submitted by XXXX indicating to BOA that it was not the same reservation agreement I agreed to. ( Exhibit 36, 15, 17-19 ). Nevertheless, BOA ignored affirmative evidence that XXXX was covering up its bogus agreements and rental practices ( bait advertising ). On XX/XX/XXXX, I received a letter from BOA indicating that after exhausting all dispute resolutions, they are unable to issue me a credit for the disputed amount. ( Exhibit 37 ). \n\nThereafter, I began to review the document in BOA message center and found documents not send to me by them from the Merchant that contradicted both its reservation and rental agreements. ( Exhibits 9-10, 38 ). I send this newly revealed information to BOA indicating that I never received this information along with the other Merchant information. Id. Based on the latter information, by XXXX own internal documentation ( rate chart ), it asserts that mileage is unlimited and make no refer to free mileage ( XXXX free miles ) or {$.00} per mile charge as purported in its bogus rental reservation. Id. \n\nConclusion Based on the evidence submitted, it is clear that XXXX violated the Bait Advertising regulation that govern advertisement practices where XXXX clearly violated 16 CFR sec. 238.2 ( a ) and ( b ), initial offer provision when it created a false impression of the origin of the product offered and when the first contact ( reservation ) was secured by deception. It violated 16 CFR sec. 238.4 ( b ), also when it failed to make a refund for a sale not made in good faith. ( See Exhibits 39 and 40 ). \n\nThe crux of my claim is that XXXX falsified the reservation agreement ( confirmation # XXXX ) to support its premise ( Exhibit 2, 10, 17, 18, 26 and 27 ). Exhibits 17-18 and 26-27 are two totally different reservations, where its purported reservation is contrary to its internal document ( Exhibit 10 ) which constitutes fraud. BOA has delete exhibits 9-10 from its message center which claim to keep for 120 days, which is evidence of its complicity of BOA together with the preponderance of evidence.","date_sent_to_company":"2018-06-12T05:44:36.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"53218","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"2933548","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2018-06-12T05:33:46.000Z","state":"WI","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":["Upon receipt of the merchants documents ( exhibits 9-10 ), ( Bank of America [ BOA ] ) <em>concluded</em> that no <em>error</em> had <em>occurred</em>. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I contacted my insuring credit card company ( BOA ) who began an <em>investigation</em> into the Merchants deceptive practices. ( Exhibit 7 ). After a scant review by BOA, it <em>concluded</em> that no billing <em>error</em> <em>occurred</em> despite a billing <em>error</em> was not in dispute. ( Exhibit 11 )."]},"sort":[16.369553,"2933548"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3744968","_score":16.280226,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"I bank online with Simple Bank. \nI had 6 fraudulent charges on my account by XXXX that posted XX/XX/XXXX were for the following amounts : {$0.00}, {$54.00}, {$1.00}, {$100.00}, {$210.00}, and {$2.00}. \nI called Simple Bank on XX/XX/XXXX to report fraudulent activity regarding numerous unauthorized charges from XXXX. \nAt the time i called, the charges were pending. When I spoke to the support person they were able to tell me that the charges coming from XXXX. They said that they would forward the information to the fraud/investigation department and to look out for a response from them. The fraud department asked me to send any documentation that I had. Since I did not make this transaction, I had no documentation to provide. \n\non XX/XX/XXXX I received the following message from XXXX  of Simple Fraud and Disputes department : \" Based on our investigation, we have concluded that no error occurred ; therefore, no funds will be credited to your account and this matter is considered closed. The reason ( s ) for denial : -The cardholder provided access to a third party, who exceeded the authority given. '' I can only assume that they were referring to the fact that my live-in partner of 7 years uses my card. \n\nOn I sent an email on XX/XX/XXXX and then on XX/XX/XXXX, I sent the following email : \" Dear Fraud Investigation Expert, I emailed the following message on XX/XX/XXXX, but havent even received confirmation that my message was received. I would really appreciate knowing that I am a valued customer and that this is being taken seriously. Can you please forward this to whoever needs to see it and give me some sort of communication to let me know what the status is? \n\nDear Fraud Investigator, I called to report fraudulent activity regarding numerous unauthorized charges from XXXX. \nAt the time i called, the charges were pending. When I spoke to your support person they were able to tell me that the charges coming from XXXX. They said that they would forward the information to the fraud/investigation department and to look out for a response from them. The feud department asked me to send any documentation that I had. Since I did not make this transaction, I had no documentation to provide. The 6 charges by XXXX that posted XX/XX/XXXX were for the following amounts : {$0.00}, {$54.00}, {$1.00}, {$100.00}, {$210.00}, and {$2.00}. \n\nI received the following message from XXXX of your Fraud and Disputes department : \" Based on our investigation, we have concluded that no error occurred ; therefore, no funds will be credited to your account and this matter is considered closed. The reason ( s ) for denial : -The cardholder provided access to a third party, who exceeded the authority given. '' This makes no sense to me whatsoever. As experts in fraud investigation, I'm certain that you are aware that the several small charges on my card are red flags for fraudulent activity. I can only assume the the third party that is mentioned as exceeding authority given refers to my girlfriend. \nMy girlfriend and partner of 7 years makes most of the payments and purchases with my card. I shared this with your support person on the phone call when I notified Simple of the unauthorized charges. The FTC limits consumer responsibility for fraud as follows ( as I'm sure that you're aware ) : ***If you report an ATM or debit card missing before someone uses it, the EFTA says you are not responsible for any unauthorized transactions. If someone uses your ATM or debit card before you report it lost or stolen, your liability depends on how quickly you report it : If you report : Your maximum loss : Before any unauthorized charges are made. {$0.00} Within 2 business days after you learn about the loss or theft. {$50.00} XXXX I'm disappointed in the response from the fraud department and would appreciate my money reimbursed, per FTC regulations. Failing that, I am requesting more detailed response that shows due diligence and rationale for the decisions made on the part of your fraud department. \nThere were also 2 (? ) fraudulent charges from XXXX made the same day, which we included in our original call regarding fraudulent charges, but they never cleared. \nThank you for your prompt attention in this matter, \" I have since called Simple numerous times requesting updates. Simple will not connect me to the Fraud Investigation department and customer service tells me every time that they will email me when they have an update. I have not received any updates of any kind, other than to acknowledge that I have sent communication regarding the fraudulent charges.","date_sent_to_company":"2020-07-14T18:21:28.000Z","issue":"Problem with a lender or other company charging your account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"97006","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3744968","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BBVA FINANCIAL CORPORATION","date_received":"2020-07-14T17:47:44.000Z","state":"OR","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Transaction was not authorized"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Simple will not connect me to the Fraud <em>Investigation</em> department and customer <em>service</em> tells me every time that they will email me when they have an update. I have not received any updates of any kind, <em>other</em> <em>than</em> to acknowledge that I have sent communication regarding the fraudulent charges."],"issue":["Problem with a lender or <em>other</em> company charging your account"]},"sort":[16.280226,"3744968"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"11282883","_score":16.270296,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"I want to highlight the various departments I have gone through to seek assistance before ending up here. It was never my intention to make anyones job harder, but I wanted to ensure that I went through all the proper channels before considering legal action. I have contacted the customer service department, the PayPal Account Review Department, PayPals Global Customer Complaints & Advocacy, and XXXXXXXX XXXX, but I have been met with no resolution and repeated statements that nothing can be done beyond the 180-day window. \n\nIn XX/XX/year>, while gathering statements to submit to a third party, I noticed several unauthorized charges on my account from XXXX. I immediately contacted a PayPal representative who reviewed the transactions and confirmed that they originated from a different IP address. Despite this, I was told that because the transactions occurred more than 180 days ago, no action could be taken. \n\nThe representative also mentioned that some of these transactions were processed using my XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX debit card, while others used my PayPal balance. Unfortunately, I was told that PayPal could not assist with either. When I explained my history of consistently maintaining a balance in my PayPal account without prior issues, I was met with a dismissive remark questioning why I was only now noticing the discrepancies. This response was humiliating, but I calmly asked them to review my account history, as my deposits are always made through PayPal, and I had no prior indication of any issues.\n\nUpon further review, I found that all unauthorized transactions had distinct names and occurred on a weekly basis. How did PayPal not notice this pattern? In addition, I have a dispute for an item I never received ( Case ID : XXXX ). The seller informed PayPal that the item was never shipped, yet I was told that no action could be taken due to the 180-day policy.\n\nHeres the continuation of your letter with corrections for clarity and flow : Frustrated, I contacted XXXXXXXX XXXX the financial institution associated with PayPal. A representative assured me that I would receive an update within 2448 hours. After five days with no response, I followed up and was told my claim had been sent to another department for investigation. Again, I was told to expect a resolution within 2448 hours. Another five days passed without any updates, so I escalated the matter to a supervisor. The supervisor was understanding and promised to escalate my case personally. Shortly after, I received an email from XXXX stating : Dear XXXX XXXX, Our review of the records indicates you contacted Customer Service on XX/XX/year>, to dispute multiple unauthorized transactions totaling {$2700.00}. On XX/XX/year>, the investigation concluded, and based on the information available, it was determined that no error occurred. An email was sent informing you of the outcome. We understand this was not the resolution you were seeking but believe the investigation of your claims was properly conducted and resolved. \n\nIt became clear from this response that my claims were not thoroughly reviewed. If XXXX genuinely investigated, why did it take less than an hour after my supervisor escalation to close my case? Out of all the unauthorized transactions I providedtotaling $ XXXXonly one was addressed, an authorized payment for {$2700.00} to XXXX XXXX I included detailed documentation for all disputed transactions, including transaction IDs and evidence that some originated from a different IP address. \n\nOne glaring issue is my dispute regarding Transaction ID : XXXX, for an item I never received. The seller confirmed that the item was never shipped. Yet, PayPal did not contact the seller or follow up appropriately. Additionally, the pattern of weekly unauthorized charges, each bearing distinct names, should have raised red flags for fraud. \n\nI understand the importance of adhering to policies, but it is unacceptable that PayPals 180-day limitation allows fraudulent activity to go unresolved. PayPal representatives advised me to contact the IC3 and participate in forums, but these efforts have not yielded results. I also contacted PayPals Global Customer Complaints & Advocacy Department, but they reiterated the same 180-day limit without further support.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-12-26T15:45:02.000Z","issue":"Other transaction problem","sub_product":"Domestic (US) money transfer","zip_code":"30141","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"11282883","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Paypal Holdings, Inc","date_received":"2024-12-26T15:30:47.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Shortly after, I received an email from XXXX stating : Dear XXXX XXXX, Our review of the records indicates you contacted Customer <em>Service</em> on XX/XX/year>, to dispute multiple unauthorized transactions totaling {$2700.00}. On XX/XX/year>, the <em>investigation</em> <em>concluded</em>, and based on the information available, it was determined that no <em>error</em> <em>occurred</em>. An email was sent informing you of the outcome."],"product":["Money transfer, virtual currency, or money <em>service</em>"],"issue":["<em>Other</em> transaction problem"]},"sort":[16.270296,"11282883"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"1892168","_score":15.373461,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"On XXXX XXXX, 2016, I used my Bank of America Credit card at a XXXX XXXX to purchase a refrigerator. But before I completed the transaction, I changed my mind and used my XXXX credit card instead. XXXX assured me that the charge on the Bank of America card never went through, and I did not see any receipt come out of the register, so I believed them. \n\nThe next day I had to cancel my order because I realized the refrigerator was too big for my kitchen. XXXX card refunded my sears charge immediately and never billed me for the charge. \n\nA couple of weeks later, I was surprised to see the XXXX charge on my Bank of America statement. I called to dispute the charge and explained exactly what happened. I then called XXXX XXXX to see if they had any record or receipt to evidence the transaction between XXXX and Bank of America for that day. I was told there was none. I called Bank of America again and relayed that information to them. I thought Bank of America would call XXXX and learn that I never took that refrigerator and that there was no record of the Bank of America charge. Instead, two weeks later, I received a letter from Bank of America asking me to resubmit the facts I had already conveyed over the phone, and documents to prove that I paid for the refrigerator by some other means. I did not have the receipt for my XXXX card because they never charged me and I never got the refrigerator. But, I completed the form and submitted it as instructed. \n\nA few weeks later, I received the same type of notice, again demanding I provide proof that I paid for the refrigerator by another means. I called Bank of America and expressed frustration at their failure to resolve this issue and their insistence that I prove that I did not authorize the charge. I asked for proof that this charge was ever authorized by me, which I knew they could not produce, because there was none. I asked if they contacted XXXX. They said that they did, but did not provide me with the results of that communication. I asked for proof that they paid XXXX anything on my behalf, for which they were charging my account. They provided none. \n\nOn XXXX XXXX, I received a final letter from Bank of America informing me that they \" were unable to determine that a billing error occurred based on the information or documentation available to us. '' They did not provide any factual basis for that conclusion, nor did they outline the steps they had taken to investigate the charge, or the specific results of that investigation. \n\nIt is beyond ridiculous that a credit card can present a consumer with nothing other than a statement by them claiming that a charge took place as the sole evidence that a charge is legitimate and actually authorized. Furthermore, it is outrageous that once a consumer has disputed that charge and clearly and unequivocally stated that they never authorized the charge or received the product or service that the consumer be required to prove a negative as opposed to the credit card providing evidence that the transaction was legitimately authorized and took place. \n\nIt turns all logic and reason on its head. I can only conclude that Bank of America operates in such a fashion in a deliberate effort to defraud its customers of monies they never spent.","date_sent_to_company":"2016-04-22T14:17:14.000Z","issue":"Billing disputes","sub_product":null,"zip_code":"08053","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"1892168","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2016-04-22T14:17:13.000Z","state":"NJ","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["On XXXX XXXX, I received a final letter from Bank of America informing me that they \" were unable to determine that a billing <em>error</em> <em>occurred</em> based on the information or documentation available to us. '' They did not provide any factual basis for that conclusion, nor did they outline the steps they had taken to <em>investigate</em> the charge, or the specific results of that <em>investigation</em>."]},"sort":[15.373461,"1892168"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3453308","_score":15.164839,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"This case is about a transaction That occurred on XX/XX/2019, for parts and services from an automobile repair shop. The company sold an engine significantly not as described ( in fact, it was illegal to sell the engine ) and failed to properly perform services paid for using a USAA debit card. I disputed the transaction with USAA, which \" determined a billing error did not occur '' as \" the correct amount was charged. \n\nOnn numerous occasions I called and provided information in support of my position to no avail. USAA is notorious for siding with merchants on its \" Community forum '' website. I explicitly pointed out this was not a Visa \" Chargeback Reason Code 12.5 : Processing Error '' issue ; instead, the applicable reasons were one or more of the following : 13.1 - Merchandise/Services Not Received, 13.3 - Not as Described or Defective Merchandise/Services, 13.5 - Misrepresentation. \n\nUSAA reversed the temporary credit of {$2500.00} bringing our account balance to less than {$0.00}. As you review my account of events, please keep in mind the *only* documentation provided by the mechanic is a single receipt signed by me on the date I picked up the vehicle. This is before what I now know about the goods and services purchased. \n\nI shared, on multiple occasions, every detail in the \" Account of Events '' below. USAA claimed the case was closed and, based on their conclusion at the end of their \" investigation, '' none of the information provided was read or considered. \n\nACCOUNT OF EVENTS : On Monday, XX/XX/2019, I paid for my car, a XXXX XXXX XXXX, to be towed to XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX due to issues with the engine. XXXX, sophisticated software used to diagnose car problems with XXXX manufactured vehicles, showed three error codes/issues with the vehicle when dropped off. \n\nPrior to doing so, however, I spoke with the owner of the shop and we agreed it would take 12-15 hours labor to swap the current engine out for another one. This conversation was recorded and the relevant section of the transcript is as follows : ME : Is it about 10 hours labor to take the engine out and put a new one back in? Or.. \n\nXXXX : You're looking probably like 15 or so, it's a pretty big deal, you know. You do other stuff while you have the engine out ... [ unintelligible ] If you're gon na do something that big, you want to do it right ... \n\nME : What's the rate on labor? \n\nXXXX : Labor is {$95.00} an hour. \n\nME : So, {$1500.00}? \n\nXXXX : Yeah, you're probably {$1500.00} just in labor ... \n\nME : Yeah ... \n\nXXXX : Plus engine, whatever that would cost ... \n\nME : Right. \n\nXXXX : You know, I'm thinking probably ... You're probably looking at about XXXX XXXX  so you're at about {$3500.00}. \n\nNote : Georgia law permits recording of conversations without consent of all parties, provided at least one ( 1 ) person is aware of such recording is taking place ( single consent ). \n\nFIRST ISSUE : Mr. XXXX, even after hearing the recording of our conversation, claims he never agreed to 15 hours labor. Instead, he misrepresented XXXX hours as \" exactly what was estimated. '' This is shown on the detailed invoice he supplied ( Note : I declined to sign this document for him ). \n\nI believe he found the replacement engine at a lower cost than he expected and inflated the hours to get closer to the {$3500.00} range we discussed. This is inappropriate as he provided an estimate, as stated on the documentation, not a firm quote. Inflating hours, at a rate of $ XXXX, is unjustified and goes against our agreement. Importantly, there was no written agreement subsequent to our oral contract. [ {$950.00} overcharge ] SECOND ISSUE : On or aboutXX/XX/2019, we had further discussions about the condition/mileage of a replacement engine in which I might have an interest. We agreed on an engine with roughly XXXX miles on it at a cost around {$1300.00}. I knew this was roughly the current market value of a XXXX engine of this mileage based on fairly extensive research. \n\nI learned after XX/XX/XXXX, at XXXXXX/XX/XXXX, the time at which I signed the receipt, Mr. XXXX installed an engine with allegedly 83,000 miles ( more than agreed ), but more importantly, the engine VIN was scratched off. When I explained the seriousness of this issue he replied via email, \" It is the company I purchased the engine from policy to remove the VIN number from the engine not mine. '' According to O.G.C.A. 40-2-21 regarding Removal or Falsification of Vehicle Identification, A person who willfully and with intent to misrepresent the identity of a vehicle or engine, removes or falsifies an identification number of a vehicle with intent to convert or defraud is guilty of a felony. \n\nMr. XXXX, after repeated requests for the VIN of the totaled automobile from which the engine was removed, provided one with absolutely no history whatsoever. Not of the vehicle being sold, registered to anyone, ever passed a smog/emissions test, or in an accident. This only fueled my concerns he placed a stolen engine into my vehicle. I'm attaching several history reports associated with the VIN for the source vehicle from which the engine allegedly came. \n\nAt this juncture the engine could have XXXX XXXX or XXXX miles on it. Perhaps, my engine was NEVER replaced, he simply fixed it, scratched off the VIN and charged me for an engine. With the VIN scratched off he can not prove he sold and installed an engine with XXXX miles. The only thing we can prove is, based on his emailed confession, his violation of O.G.C.A. 40-2-21 regarding Removal or Falsification of Vehicle Identification Number. \n\nI believe at this juncture it's safe to conclude the requested chargeback should be honored on the grounds, at a minimum, the merchandise was not as described and/or misrepresentation on the part of Mr. XXXX. \n\nTHIRD ISSUE : Adding insult to injury, the installed engine is not working properly even after towing it to the shop once for repairs. The XXXX error codes increased from three when towed to the shop to 13 immediately after driving the vehicle home after the engine replacement. As mentioned, this is a very sophisticated diagnostic tool and I'm providing this information ( along with screenshots of the analysis ) rather than descriptions of how the engine stutters, accelerates more slowly, etc. as it is measurable and quantifiable. \n\nI shared this information with USAA in the same level of detail simply requesting approval of the chargeback. USAA is, in my opinion, wrongfully abdicating its responsibility to properly monitor and act upon chargebacks in the hope customers ( or soon to be former customers ) let it go.","date_sent_to_company":"2019-11-28T07:48:54.000Z","issue":"Problem with a lender or other company charging your account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"30350","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3453308","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2019-11-28T05:28:37.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":"Company believes complaint is the result of an isolated error","sub_issue":"Transaction was not authorized"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This case is about a transaction That <em>occurred</em> on XX/XX/2019, for parts and <em>services</em> from an automobile repair shop. The company sold an engine significantly not as described ( in fact, it was illegal to sell the engine ) and failed to properly perform <em>services</em> paid for using a USAA debit card. I disputed the transaction with USAA, which \" determined a billing <em>error</em> did not <em>occur</em> '' as \" the correct amount was charged."],"issue":["Problem with a lender or <em>other</em> company charging your account"],"company":["UNITED <em>SERVICES</em> AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION"],"company_public_response":["Company believes complaint is the result of an isolated <em>error</em>"]},"sort":[15.164839,"3453308"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"21126518","_score":15.11563,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"CFPB Complaint Narrative : Supplemental Filing Company : Chime Financial , Inc./ XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. \nClaim ID : XXXX Account : Ending in XXXX Dispute Type : Debit, Non-Receipt of Goods or Services Amount : {$900.00} Date Error Reported : XX/XX/XXXX Prior CFPB Complaint : XXXX Summary I am filing this supplemental complaint to document concerns regarding Chime Financial and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. 's handling of Claim ID XXXX under Regulation XXXX This complaint addresses four areas : ( 1 ) denial of provisional credit based on a legal standard not found in Regulation E, ( 2 ) a documentation request issued on the final day of the investigation through a mechanism that expired before it could reasonably be acted upon, ( 3 ) a denial issued after the 90-day investigation window had closed, and ( 4 ) failure to provide investigation documents upon request. I am presenting these facts for the Bureau 's evaluation in the context of Chime 's prior enforcement history. \nComplete Timeline of Events XX/XX/XXXX : I initiated a {$900.00} debit card transaction to Hard Rock Bet. The service associated with this transaction was not delivered. \nXX/XX/XXXX ( Day XXXX ) : I reported the error to Chime and filed Dispute # XXXX under the category of Non-Receipt of Goods or Services. Chime assigned the dispute and began its investigation.\n\nWithin 10 business days : No provisional credit was issued to my account. When I inquired about provisional credit, I was told by a Chime representative that provisional credit was not available because the dispute was not classified as fraud. \nXX/XX/XXXX ( Day XXXX ), XXXX XXXX XXXX  : I called Chime to check the status of the dispute. The call lasted 33 minutes before being disconnected. I was again told that no provisional credit would be issued and that the dispute was not eligible because it was not a fraud claim. I have a screenshot of the dispute still showing as open at this time. \nXX/XX/XXXX ( Day XXXX ), XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  I called Chime back after the disconnection. This second call lasted 11 minutes. The same position was communicated : no provisional credit because the dispute was not classified as fraud. No documentation or information was requested from me during either call or at any prior point in the investigation. This is the second occasion on which Chime communicated this incorrect legal standard to me. I have phone records documenting both calls. \nXX/XX/XXXX ( Day XXXX ), XXXX XXXX XXXX  : I called Chime to check the status of the dispute on the final day of the 90-day investigation window. This call lasted 12 minutes. On every prior call throughout the dispute, I was routed directly to the dispute team. On this call, I was routed only to a general customer service representative who could not access dispute details or provide specific information about the claim. The representative stated : ( 1 ) no resolution had been issued, ( 2 ) if I did not receive a resolution by end of day, I should call back XX/XX/XXXX to 'discuss a new timeline for a resolution, ' and ( 3 ) the transaction was not eligible for provisional credit because it was not a fraud dispute. \nXX/XX/XXXX ( Day XXXX ), XXXXXXXX XXXX through XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  : I made XXXX additional calls to Chime between XXXX XXXX   and XXXX PM attempting to reach the dispute team or get further information. Call durations were 1, 1, 1, 3, and 10 minutes respectively. Most were disconnected or resulted in short interactions with no substantive information provided. My phone records document all six calls on this date. I note that the change in call routing on the deadline date, and the inability to reach anyone with dispute authority across six separate attempts, was a departure from my experience on every prior call. \nXX/XX/XXXX, XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  ( Day XXXX ) : Within minutes of my last call ending at approximately XXXXXXXX XXXX, Chime sent an email titled 'Re : Secure Documentation Request for Dispute ID XXXX ' requesting that I upload supporting documents via a secure link. The email stated that the upload link expires one hour after generation. I note the proximity in timing between my final call and this request. This was the first and only request for documentation in the entire 90-day investigation. No documentation had been requested at any point during the prior 89 days. The link had expired by the time the email could reasonably be read and acted upon. \nXX/XX/XXXX, approximately XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Day 90 ) : I filed a CFPB complaint ( the prior complaint referenced above ) documenting the missed provisional credit and the approaching deadline. \nXX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Day 90 ) : I captured a screenshot of the Chime app confirming Dispute # XXXX was still showing as 'In progress ' under the XXXX ' tab. No resolution had been issued. \nXX/XX/XXXX, XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  ( Day 90 ) : I captured an additional screenshot confirming the dispute was still showing as 'In progress ' and 'Open. ' No resolution had been issued with fewer than 30 minutes remaining in Day 90. \nXX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Day 91 ) : I captured a screenshot of the Chime app confirming Dispute # XXXX was still showing as 'In progress ' under the 'Open ' tab. The 90-day investigation window had closed. \nXX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Day 91 ) : I captured additional screenshots. The dispute was still showing 'In progress ' and 'Open. ' The 'Closed ' tab showed 'No past disputes, ' confirming no determination had been made. \nXX/XX/XXXX, approximately XXXX AM ET ( Day 91 ) : Chime sent an email from XXXX with the subject 'Important Account Information ' issuing a final determination denying the claim. The denial stated that Chime 'concluded no error occurred \" based on \" a review of our systems ' and 'information provided during the claim filing process. ' No specific findings were provided. No evidence was cited. No explanation of how Chime determined no error occurred was included. The denial was issued approximately XXXX hours after requesting documentation through an already-expired link, without waiting for or referencing any response to that request. \nXX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX : I sent a written request to XXXX citing 12 CFR 1005.11 ( d ) and requesting all documents relied upon in the investigation and determination. Chime responded with a generic auto-reply directing me to call ( XXXX ) XXXX or contact them through the app. No documents were provided. No substantive response was given. The auto-reply did not acknowledge the document request, did not provide a timeline for production, and did not identify who would handle it.\n\nViolation 1 : Failure to Issue Provisional Credit Under 12 CFR 1005.11 ( c ) ( 2 ) ( i ), when a financial institution can not complete its investigation within 10 business days, it must provisionally credit the consumer 's account for the full amount of the alleged error within 10 business days of receiving the error notice. This requirement applies to all error types covered by Reg E, including non-receipt of goods or services. There are only two narrow exceptions : ( A ) the institution requested written confirmation of an oral notice and did not receive it within 10 business days, or ( B ) the account is subject to Regulation T ( securities margin accounts ). Neither exception applies here.\n\nChime did not issue provisional credit for this {$900.00} dispute. When I inquired about provisional credit on at least three separate occasions ( within 10 business days, on XX/XX/XXXX across two calls totaling 44 minutes, and again on XX/XX/XXXX ), I was told by Chime representatives that provisional credit was not available because the dispute was not classified as fraud. This standard does not appear in Regulation E. The regulation does not limit provisional credit to fraud or unauthorized transaction disputes. The provisional credit requirement under 1005.11 ( c ) ( 2 ) ( i ) applies whenever the institution extends its investigation beyond 10 business days, regardless of the error type.\n\nThe consistency of this response across three separate occasions and multiple representatives sugg\nests this may reflect a policy or training issue rather than an isolated error by a single employee.\n\nChime 's refusal to issue provisional credit while extending the investigation to 91 days caused me direct financial harm. I was deprived of access to {$900.00} for the entire duration of the investigation.\n\nViolation 2 : Investigation Exceeded 90-Day Deadline Under 12 CFR 1005.11 ( c ) ( 3 ) ( ii ), the investigation period for POS debit card transactions may be extended to 90 days ( in place of 45 days ). Chime 's investigation began on XX/XX/XXXX. The 90th day was XX/XX/XXXX. \nAs of XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX ( Day XXXX ), the dispute was still showing as 'In progress ' and 'Open ' in the Chime app. Screenshots captured at XXXX XXXX  and XXXX XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX ( Day 91 ) confirmed the dispute remained open past midnight. The XXXX ' tab showed 'No past disputes ' at XXXX XXXX. The denial was not issued until approximately XXXX XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. This means the investigation was completed and the determination issued after the 90-day regulatory window had closed.\n\nFurthermore, because Chime never issued provisional credit as required under 1005.11 ( c ) ( 2 ) ( i ), Chime was not entitled to the extended investigation period in the first place. The 45-day and 90-day extensions are conditioned on the institution provisionally crediting the consumer 's account. Without provisional credit, the investigation should have been completed within 10 business days. \nViolation 3 : Documentation Request on Day 90 Chime conducted its investigation for 90 calendar days without requesting any documentation from me. No request for information, evidence, receipts, correspondence, or any other supporting material was made at any point during the first 89 days.\n\nOn Day 90 of the investigation ( XX/XX/XXXX ), at XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, Chime sent its first and only request for supporting documentation via a secure upload link that expires one hour after generation. Fewer than XXXX hours later, at approximately XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX, Chime issued its final determination denying the claim. The denial provided no specific findings and did not reference any response or lack of response to the documentation request. \nI present the following timeline for the XXXX 's consideration. A documentation request was sent at XXXX XXXX  on the final day of the investigation window, through a link that expires in one hour. A denial was issued during overnight hours fewer than 8 hours later. No documentation had been requested during the prior 89 days. The denial did not reference any response or lack of response to the documentation request. I respectfully submit that this sequence raises questions about whether the documentation request was part of a substantive investigation or served another purpose.\n\nViolation 4 : Failure to Provide Investigation Documents Under 12 CFR 1005.11 ( d ) ( 1 ), when a financial institution determines no error occurred, its report must include a written explanation of its findings and must note the consumer 's right to request the documents relied upon. Upon request, the institution must promptly provide copies. \nChime 's denial email did reference this right. On XX/XX/XXXX, at XXXX XXXX XXXX, I sent a written request to XXXX citing 12 CFR 1005.11 ( d ) and requesting all documents relied upon in the investigation and determination. Chime responded with a generic auto-reply directing me to call ( XXXX ) XXXX or contact them through the app. No documents have been provided. No substantive response was given. \nAdditionally, the denial email may not satisfy the written explanation requirement under 1005.11 ( d ) ( 1 ). The email states only that Chime 'concluded no error occurred \" based on \" a review of our systems ' and 'information provided during the claim filing process. ' No specific evidence was cited, no investigative steps were described, and no reasoning was provided for how Chime reached its conclusion. I respectfully ask the Bureau to evaluate whether this meets the standard for a written explanation of findings. \nPattern of Conduct The conduct described in this complaint is consistent with a documented pattern of Regulation E and consumer protection violations by Chime Financial : CFPB Consent Order, XX/XX/XXXX ( File No. XXXX ) : The Bureau found that Chime engaged in unfair practices by failing to timely refund consumer balances after account closures, with thousands of consumers waiting more than 90 days. Chime was ordered to pay a {$3.00} million civil money penalty and at least {$1.00} million in consumer redress. The consent order explicitly states that the Bureau may use these practices 'to establish a pattern or practice of violations ' in future enforcement.\n\nCalifornia DFPI Consent Order, XX/XX/XXXX : Chime was fined {$2.00} XXXX by the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation for unfair and untimely handling of consumer complaints. Chime was ordered to improve customer service standards, ensure 24/7 support, and report to the DFPI annually for two years.\n\nCFPB Complaint Database : Chime has been the subject of thousands of consumer complaints filed with the CFPB. Reporting from XXXX documented XXXX CFPB complaints between XX/XX/XXXX and XXXX alone, with nearly XXXX involving locked accounts. Consumers have also filed over XXXX complaints with the Better Business Bureau. \nThe facts of my case reflect a similar pattern. Provisional credit was denied based on a legal standard not found in Regulation E. Documentation was requested on the final day of the investigation through a link that expired within one hour. The investigation exceeded the regulatory deadline. Investigation documents were requested and have not been provided. I respectfully ask the Bureau to evaluate whether these facts, taken together, reflect compliance with the requirements of Regulation E.\n\nRelief Requested I request that the CFPB : Investigate Chime 's practice of denying provisional credit for non-fraud Reg E disputes, which appears to be a systemic misapplication of 12 CFR 1005.11 ( c ) ( 2 ) ( i ).\n\nRequire Chime and XXXX XXXX XXXX  to promptly provide the investigation documents I requested under 12 CFR 1005.11 ( d ) ( 1 ).\n\nEvaluate whether the documentation request and denial timeline in this case constitutes a good-faith investigation under Regulation E.\n\nEvaluate whether the denial, issued on Day 91 after the 90-day investigation window closed, constitutes a valid determination under 12 CFR 1005.11 ( c ) ( 3 ) ( ii ).\n\nConsider this complaint in the context of the existing 2024 CFPB consent order and California DFPI consent order, and Chime 's documented pattern of consumer protection violations. \nFiled by : XXXX XXXX Email : XXXX Phone : XXXX Date : XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2026-04-10T13:28:36.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"48316","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"21126518","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Chime Financial Inc","date_received":"2026-04-10T12:44:13.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Problem using a debit or ATM card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["The denial stated that Chime '<em>concluded</em> no <em>error</em> <em>occurred</em> \" based on \" a review of our systems ' and 'information provided during the claim filing process. ' No specific findings were provided. No evidence was cited. No explanation of how Chime determined no <em>error</em> <em>occurred</em> was included. The denial was issued approximately XXXX hours after requesting documentation through an already-expired link, without waiting for or referencing any response to that request."]},"sort":[15.11563,"21126518"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13912145","_score":15.110547,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, NY XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXXExperian XX/XX/XXXX Dispute Department P.O. XXXX XXXX XXXX, TX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Subject : Formal Dispute of Mathematical Error in Credit Utilization Calculation XX/XX/XXXXConsumer Name XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX Date of Birth : XX/XX/XXXXXXXXXX/XX/XXXXSocial Security Number : XX/XX/XXXX Last XXXXXX/XX/XXXXReport Date : XX/XX/XXXXXX/XX/year> Dear Dispute Review Team, I am writing to formally dispute a mathematical error in my credit report that violates basic arithmetic principles and adversely impacts my credit score in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act 's accuracy requirements. This error can be independently verified using simple mathematical calculation with data contained within my own credit report.\n\nIdentification of Mathematical Error My credit report contains contradictory mathematical information that demonstrates an objective calculation error in my credit utilization assessment. Specifically : * * Page 1 of my report states : * * - Credit used : {$260.00} - Credit limit : {$43000.00} * * Page 24 of my report claims : * * - \" Ratio of your revolving balances to your credit limits : 11 % '' * * Mathematical verification proves this claim is incorrect : * * {$260.00} {$43000.00} = 0.619 % actual utilization The reported eleven percent utilization represents a 10.38 percentage point overstatement of my actual credit usage ( 11 % - 0.619 % = 10.38 % mathematical error ).\n\nImpact on Credit Score and Financial Standing This mathematical error directly impacts my creditworthiness assessment in ways that violate federal accuracy standards. Credit utilization accounts for approximately thirty percent of FICO score calculations according to Fair Isaac Corporation 's published methodology. Research indicates that utilization rates below one percent typically receive significantly higher credit scoring than utilization rates above ten percent.\n\nThis ten-point-four percentage point error likely reduces my credit score by twenty to thirty points, placing me in a \" moderate utilization '' risk category when I actually maintain \" excellent utilization '' practices. The incorrect calculation causes my credit score to be computed using inappropriate risk assessment parameters that do not reflect my actual credit behavior.\n\nLegal Authority Requiring Correction The Fair Credit Reporting Act, specifically 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ), requires that you \" follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom the report relates. '' Mathematical calculations represent objective facts that can be verified independently without subjective interpretation.\n\nThere exists no reasonable procedure that would conclude {$260.00} divided by {$43000.00} equals eleven percent. This calculation error represents a clear violation of the accuracy standards mandated under federal law, particularly given that the error can be verified using data contained within my own credit report.\n\nSupporting Evidence and Documentation I have verified this mathematical error through multiple independent calculation methods : * * Manual verification : * * Using a standard calculator, {$260.00} {$43000.00} = 0.00619 = 0.619 % * * Spreadsheet verification : * * Electronic calculation confirms the same result with additional decimal precision * * Cross-reference verification : * * Review of individual account statements confirms the accuracy of both the total balance ( {$260.00} ) and total credit limit ( {$43000.00} ) figures used in this calculation The mathematical error requires no external investigation because it can be verified entirely using data that Experian has already compiled and reported within my credit file.\n\nSpecific Actions Requested I respectfully request that Experian take the following corrective actions within the thirty-day investigation period required under federal law : 1. * * Immediate Mathematical Correction : * * Recalculate my credit utilization ratio using accurate arithmetic : {$260.00} {$43000.00} = 0.619 % 2. * * Credit Score Recalculation : * * Update my FICO score to reflect the corrected utilization ratio, which should result in significant score improvement given the magnitude of the current error 3. * * System Audit : * * Review your calculation methodology to identify how this mathematical error occurred and implement procedures to prevent similar calculation mistakes in future reporting 4. * * Written Confirmation : * * Provide detailed written confirmation that the correction has been completed, including documentation of any credit score changes resulting from the accurate utilization calculation Documentation of Calculation Methodology To ensure complete transparency in this dispute, I am providing the step-by-step mathematical verification that proves the error : * * Step 1 : * * Total revolving credit balances = {$260.00} ( as reported on page 1 ) * * Step 2 : * * Total revolving credit limits = {$43000.00} ( as reported on page 1 ) * * Step 3 : * * Utilization calculation = {$260.00} {$43000.00} = 0.00619 * * Step 4 : * * Percentage conversion = 0.00619 100 = 0.619 % * * Step 5 : * * Comparison to reported figure = 0.619 % vs. claimed 11 % = 10.38 % error This calculation follows standard mathematical principles universally accepted in financial services and specifically matches the utilization calculation methodology published by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Federal Reserve .\n\nTimeline Expectations and Legal Compliance Given that this dispute involves objective mathematical verification rather than subjective account investigation, I expect this correction can be processed more rapidly than disputes requiring extensive creditor communication. The error can be verified and corrected using data already contained within your systems.\n\nPlease provide written response within thirty days as required under FCRA Section 611 ( a ) ( 1 ). However, I note that mathematical accuracy represents a fundamental requirement of credit reporting, and delays in correcting objective calculation errors could constitute ongoing violations of federal accuracy standards.\n\nConsumer Rights and Regulatory Oversight I understand my rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, including the right to accurate reporting, timely investigation of disputes, and appropriate remediation when errors are identified. Should this mathematical error not be corrected promptly, I am prepared to file complaints with appropriate regulatory agencies, including the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and pursue all available remedies under federal law.\n\nMathematical accuracy in credit reporting is not optional or subject to interpretation. It represents a fundamental requirement that protects consumers from arbitrary or erroneous credit assessments that could impact their access to credit, employment, housing, and other opportunities.\n\nContact Information and Follow-Up Please direct all correspondence regarding this dispute to : * * Mailing Address : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, NY XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  Email Address : * * XXXX I request that all communications regarding this dispute reference the mathematical nature of the error and provide specific information about the correction methodology used to resolve the calculation mistake.\n\nConclusion This mathematical error represents an objective, verifiable inaccuracy that directly impacts my credit score and financial standing. The error violates federal accuracy requirements and can be corrected through simple arithmetic verification using data already contained within my credit file.\n\nI look forward to your prompt correction of this mathematical error and written confirmation that my credit utilization ratio and credit score now reflect accurate calculations based on my actual credit usage patterns.\n\nThank you for your immediate attention to this matter. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX-","date_sent_to_company":"2025-06-05T23:11:28.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"11212","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13912145","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-06-05T22:52:42.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Account status incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Timeline Expectations and Legal Compliance Given that this dispute involves objective mathematical verification rather <em>than</em> subjective account <em>investigation</em>, I expect this correction can be processed more rapidly <em>than</em> disputes requiring extensive creditor communication. The <em>error</em> can be verified and corrected using data already contained within your systems.\n\nPlease provide written response within thirty days as required under FCRA Section 611 ( a ) ( 1 )."],"product":["Credit reporting or <em>other</em> personal consumer reports"]},"sort":[15.110547,"13912145"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"15874566","_score":14.718163,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"To Whom It May Concern : I am filing a formal complaint against USAA Federal Savings Bank regarding its handling of my dispute over two unauthorized electronic fund transfers on my personal bank account. The transactions in question occurred on XX/XX/year>XXXX  and XX/XX/year>, while I was XXXX  and XXXX. I was admitted to the XXXX on XX/XX/year>, and remained under XXXX XXXX XXXX  ( and largely unable to communicate or manage my finances ) until XX/XX/year>. As a result, I did not discover or report the fraudulent transactions until early XX/XX/year>, shortly after I had recovered enough to review my account statements. \n\nUpon notifying USAA of these unauthorized charges, the banks customer service initially issued provisional credits to my account for the disputed amounts, pending investigation. However, I was later informed by USAA that my claim was denied and the credits were reversed. The reason given was that my report came too late ( beyond the typical 60-day window from when the transactions appeared on my statements ), and that the bank had concluded no error occurred. I strongly believe USAAs decision violates the consumer protections afforded to me under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ) and its implementing Regulation E, and I am requesting the CFPBs assistance to ensure my rights are upheld. \n\nRegulation E Violation Failure to Extend Notification Period for Extenuating Circumstances : USAAs denial of my claim due to late reporting fails to consider the extenuating circumstances that caused my delay. Under 12 C.F.R. 1005.6 ( b ) ( 4 ) ( Regulation E ), if a consumers delay in reporting an unauthorized electronic fund transfer was because of extenuating circumstances beyond their control, the financial institution shall extend the [ notification ] times specified to a reasonable period. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureaus official interpretation of this provision specifically cites a consumers extended hospitalization as an example of a situation requiring extension of the normal 60-day reporting window. In my case, I was XXXX  for an extended period ( over six weeks ) during which I was prevented from discovering or reporting the unauthorized transactions. I notified USAA at the earliest reasonable opportunity once I was medically able to do so. By law, USAA should have treated my XXXX notice as timely given these circumstances, rather than using the delay to summarily deny my dispute. \n\nImproper Denial of an Unauthorized EFT Claim : The transactions on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/year> were not authorized by me in any way. They meet the EFTAs definition of an unauthorized electronic fund transfer, which includes any transfer from a consumers account initiated by another person without authority and from which the consumer receives no benefit. Regulation Es error resolution rules obligate financial institutions to investigate consumers reports of unauthorized EFTs and correct any errors found, while limiting the consumers liability for fraudulent transactions. USAA initially appeared to follow these rules by providing provisional credit, but then reversed course. The banks final position refusing to cover the losses solely because my report was delayed is inconsistent with Regulation Es protections. Even when a notice of error is given outside the typical 60-day statement period, the law does not permit the bank to ignore a legitimate unauthorized transaction claim or to impose unlimited liability on the consumer without considering extenuating factors. Indeed, the Official Staff Commentary to Regulation E makes clear that the 60-day rule for error notices does not entirely strip a consumer of protection for earlier unauthorized transactions, and that liability limits still apply to those transactions. Furthermore, a consumers failure to report promptly due to no fault of their own ( for example, due to hospitalization ) can not be used by the bank as a basis to increase the consumers liability beyond what the regulation explicitly allows. \n\nIn my situation, USAAs actions ( denying the claim and debiting my account for the previously credited funds ) effectively hold me financially responsible for fraudulent transactions that I was physically incapable of reporting sooner. This outcome defeats the purpose of the EFTA/Regulation E, which is to protect consumers from unauthorized transfers and ensure they are not held liable in unfair circumstances. USAAs stance appears to be a direct contravention of 12 C.F.R. 1005.6 ( b ) ( 4 ) and the related consumer protections. It is deeply frustrating and distressing to face financial loss from fraud, only to have my bank reject the claim on a technicality that should not apply due to my medical emergency. \n\nRequested Resolution : I am seeking the CFPBs assistance in resolving this matter. I request that USAA be instructed or guided to reinvestigate my unauthorized transaction claims with full consideration of the extenuating circumstances, and to reimburse me for the amounts of the XX/XX/year>XXXX  and XX/XX/year>XXXX  unauthorized charges. This would involve restoring the provisional credits ( or otherwise crediting my account ) for those transactions, consistent with USAAs obligations under Regulation E. I also ask that the CFPB ensure USAA adjusts its processes if necessary to comply with Regulation E, so that other consumers are not similarly disadvantaged when they face legitimate delays in reporting due to reasons beyond their control. I am happy to provide the CFPB and USAA with documentation of my hospitalization and incapacity during the period in question, or any additional information needed to support my claim. \n\nThank you for your attention to this complaint. I appreciate the Consumer Financial Protection Bureaus role in enforcing consumer protection laws and ensuring fair treatment. I hope for a prompt and fair resolution that makes me whole for the unauthorized transactions and holds USAA accountable to its regulatory obligations.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-09-11T19:04:11.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"33881","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"15874566","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2025-09-11T18:46:56.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Banking errors"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Upon notifying USAA of these unauthorized charges, the banks customer <em>service</em> initially issued provisional credits to my account for the disputed amounts, pending <em>investigation</em>. However, I was later informed by USAA that my claim was denied and the credits were reversed. The reason given was that my report came too late ( beyond the typical 60-day window from when the transactions appeared on my statements ), and that the bank had <em>concluded</em> no <em>error</em> <em>occurred</em>."],"company":["UNITED <em>SERVICES</em> AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION"],"sub_issue":["Banking <em>errors</em>"]},"sort":[14.718163,"15874566"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":79,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":79}]}},"product":{"doc_count":79,"product":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Checking or savings account","doc_count":20,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Checking account","doc_count":18},{"key":"Other banking product or service","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Credit card","doc_count":11,"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":10}]}},{"key":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":10,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":10}]}},{"key":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","doc_count":10,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Domestic (US) money transfer","doc_count":5},{"key":"Mobile or digital wallet","doc_count":3},{"key":"Virtual currency","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Debt collection","doc_count":9,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"I do not know","doc_count":8},{"key":"Other debt","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Credit card or prepaid card","doc_count":7,"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":5},{"key":"General-purpose prepaid card","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Mortgage","doc_count":6,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Conventional home mortgage","doc_count":4},{"key":"FHA mortgage","doc_count":1},{"key":"VA mortgage","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Prepaid card","doc_count":3,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"General purpose card","doc_count":1},{"key":"General-purpose prepaid card","doc_count":1},{"key":"Government benefit card","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Debt or credit management","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Debt settlement","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Payday loan, title loan, personal loan, or advance loan","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Installment loan","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"issue":{"doc_count":79,"issue":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Managing an account","doc_count":12,"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":4},{"key":"Banking errors","doc_count":2},{"key":"Deposits and withdrawals","doc_count":2},{"key":"Problem making or receiving payments","doc_count":2},{"key":"Funds not handled or disbursed as instructed","doc_count":1},{"key":"Problem accessing account","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","doc_count":11,"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":6},{"key":"Card was charged for something you did not purchase with the card","doc_count":5}]}},{"key":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","doc_count":7,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Debt is not yours","doc_count":7}]}},{"key":"Fraud or scam","doc_count":7,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Incorrect information on your report","doc_count":7,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Information belongs to someone else","doc_count":4},{"key":"Account information incorrect","doc_count":2},{"key":"Account status incorrect","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a lender or other company charging your account","doc_count":5,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Transaction was not authorized","doc_count":5}]}},{"key":"Problem with a purchase or transfer","doc_count":4,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase or transfer","doc_count":4}]}},{"key":"Trouble during payment process","doc_count":3,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Trying to communicate with the company to fix an issue while managing or servicing your loan","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Closing an account","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Company closed your account","doc_count":1},{"key":"Funds not received from closed account","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Closing your account","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Can't close your account","doc_count":1},{"key":"Company closed your account","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Improper use of your report","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Reporting company used your report improperly","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Other transaction problem","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Struggling to pay mortgage","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"An existing modification, forbearance plan, short sale, or other loss mitigation relief","doc_count":1},{"key":"Foreclosure","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Applying for a mortgage or refinancing an existing mortgage","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Application denials","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Billing disputes","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"False statements or representation","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Attempted to collect wrong amount","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Fees or interest","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Problem with fees","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Other features, terms, or problems","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Privacy issues","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem caused by your funds being low","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Overdrafts and overdraft fees","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem when making payments","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Unauthorized transactions or other transaction problem","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Unauthorized transactions/trans. issues","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Unauthorized withdrawals or charges","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Written notification about debt","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Didn't receive enough information to verify debt","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"timely":{"doc_count":79,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":78},{"key":"No","doc_count":1}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":79,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":65},{"key":"Closed with non-monetary relief","doc_count":8},{"key":"Closed with monetary relief","doc_count":6}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":79,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":79}]}},"company":{"doc_count":79,"company":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Chime Financial Inc","doc_count":6},{"key":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","doc_count":6},{"key":"UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION","doc_count":5},{"key":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","doc_count":4},{"key":"Block, Inc.","doc_count":3},{"key":"EQUIFAX, INC.","doc_count":3},{"key":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","doc_count":3},{"key":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","doc_count":3},{"key":"KEYCORP","doc_count":3},{"key":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","doc_count":3},{"key":"DISCOVER BANK","doc_count":2},{"key":"ENCORE CAPITAL GROUP INC.","doc_count":2},{"key":"Paypal Holdings, Inc","doc_count":2},{"key":"Resurgent Capital Services L.P.","doc_count":2},{"key":"AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY","doc_count":1},{"key":"BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORPORATION, THE","doc_count":1},{"key":"BARCLAYS BANK DELAWARE","doc_count":1},{"key":"BBVA FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"Blackhawk Network Holdings Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"CARD Corporation","doc_count":1},{"key":"CITIBANK, N.A.","doc_count":1},{"key":"CITIZENS FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"CRED Technologies dba cred.ai","doc_count":1},{"key":"Comerica","doc_count":1},{"key":"Credit Systems International, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"DEBT 0, INC","doc_count":1},{"key":"Dovenmuehle Mortgage, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Early Warning Services, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"First Technology Federal Credit Union","doc_count":1},{"key":"GOLDMAN SACHS BANK USA","doc_count":1},{"key":"HOME BANCSHARES, INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"HW Holding, Inc","doc_count":1},{"key":"Io, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"LendingPoint Holdings LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"MIDFIRST BANK","doc_count":1},{"key":"NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","doc_count":1},{"key":"Netspend Corporation","doc_count":1},{"key":"Ocwen Financial Corporation","doc_count":1},{"key":"PNC Bank N.A.","doc_count":1},{"key":"PROSPERITY BANCSHARES, INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Rent Recovery Solutions","doc_count":1},{"key":"Rowland Avenue Management, Inc. A/KA Columbia Debt Recovery, LLC d/b/a Genesis","doc_count":1},{"key":"SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"TRUIST FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"UMB FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":1}]}},"state":{"doc_count":79,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"TX","doc_count":16},{"key":"FL","doc_count":9},{"key":"GA","doc_count":5},{"key":"PA","doc_count":5},{"key":"CA","doc_count":4},{"key":"IL","doc_count":4},{"key":"MD","doc_count":4},{"key":"NC","doc_count":4},{"key":"NJ","doc_count":3},{"key":"NY","doc_count":3},{"key":"WA","doc_count":3},{"key":"CO","doc_count":2},{"key":"IN","doc_count":2},{"key":"MI","doc_count":2},{"key":"DE","doc_count":1},{"key":"KS","doc_count":1},{"key":"KY","doc_count":1},{"key":"MN","doc_count":1},{"key":"MO","doc_count":1},{"key":"OH","doc_count":1},{"key":"OK","doc_count":1},{"key":"OR","doc_count":1},{"key":"SC","doc_count":1},{"key":"TN","doc_count":1},{"key":"UT","doc_count":1},{"key":"VA","doc_count":1},{"key":"WI","doc_count":1}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":79,"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":24},{"key":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","doc_count":3},{"key":"Company believes complaint is the result of an isolated error","doc_count":1}]}},"tags":{"doc_count":79,"tags":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Servicemember","doc_count":11},{"key":"Older American","doc_count":3}]}}},"_meta":{"license":"CC0","last_updated":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","last_indexed":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","total_record_count":16441818,"is_data_stale":false,"has_data_issue":false,"break_points":{"2":[14.718163,"15874566"],"3":[9.392742,"3306722"],"4":[6.3134604,"9637822"]}}}