{"took":193,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":41,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17306433","_score":28.011126,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"I am filing a complaint regarding Chase Bank 's mishandling of a serious Account Takeover, mail theft, and unauthorized ATM withdrawals, purchases, and electronic transfers incident totaling almost {$17000.00}. There are multiple claims open due to the fact that criminals had access to 2 bank accounts ( one savings, one checking ), and used several methods for stealing ( ATM withdrawals, in-store purchases, and electronic transfers ). For the claim on the checking account, Chase has denied my claim twice, despite clear evidence of account takeover, procedural failures, and violations of Regulation E. \n\n1. Criminals accessed my online Chase account before contacting me They referenced my exact recent Chase transactions, including : - A {$390.00} XXXX purchase - My {$2200.00} XXXX payment to XXXX XXXX  This information is only visible inside my Chase account. This proves unauthorized access and establishes that this was an Account Takeover, not \" customer-authorized activity. '' 2. Chase canceled my debit card and issued a new card at the request of the criminals I did NOT request a new debit card or authorize cancellation of my existing one. \nThis means Chase processed a high-risk action ( card cancellation + replacement issuance ) without verifying my identity.\n\nThis is a procedural failure by Chase 's fraud prevention and customer authentication processes.\n\n3. The replacement debit card was stolen from the mail The criminals intercepted the replacement card and used it with the PIN they socially engineered. This is federal mail theft.\n\n4. The criminals withdrew money, used it for purchases, and electronic transfers using the stolen card I did NOT authorize these withdrawals, purchases, and transfers. I was not present, and I do not know the individuals. ATM surveillance footage exists and will show the thief.\n\n5. Chase incorrectly denied my claim twice Chase incorrectly classified the fraud as \" customer provided PIN '', which is factually and legally incorrect.\n\nThe fraud involved : Unauthorized access to my online account, Caller ID spoofing, Mail theft, A stole physical debit card, Unauthorized ATM withdrawals, Unauthorized purchases using social engineering, unauthorized electronic transfers, A procedural failure by Chase in issuing a card I never requested Under regulation E, I am not liable for unauthorized electronic fund transfers that result from account takeover or bank error. Chase continues to deny my claim despite evidence that this was NOT customer-authorized. \n\n6. I have filed all required reports- Chicago Police Department Report - Report the stolen package to UPS - FTC Identity Theft Affidavit - Executive Office escalation at Chase I am requesting that the CFPB require Chase to : - Reclassify my claim and all my claims under Account Takeover + Unauthorized Transaction + Mail Theft - Conduct a full investigation of their procedural failure in issuing a debit card without my authorization - Reimburse me for all unauthorized withdrawals, transfers and purchases as required by Regulation E - Provide written findings justifying their previous denials This situation has created significant financial stress and emotional distress. \nI am simply requesting that Chase apply federal consumer protections correctly and take responsibility for their internal failures that enabled fraud.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-17T16:04:39.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"60611","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17306433","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","date_received":"2025-11-17T15:28:29.000Z","state":"IL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Problem using a debit or ATM card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Chase canceled my <em>debit</em> <em>card</em> and <em>issued</em> a new <em>card</em> at the request of the criminals I did NOT request a new <em>debit</em> <em>card</em> or authorize cancellation of my existing one. \nThis means Chase processed a high-risk action ( <em>card</em> cancellation + replacement <em>issuance</em> ) <em>without</em> verifying my identity.\n\nThis is a <em>procedural</em> <em>failure</em> by Chase 's fraud prevention and customer authentication processes.\n\n3."],"sub_issue":["Problem using a <em>debit</em> or ATM <em>card</em>"]},"sort":[28.011126,"17306433"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16374019","_score":23.838072,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"To Whom It May Concern, I am a XXXX XXXX  writing to file a formal complaint against the financial technology company Chime Financial , Inc. regarding their insufficient account opening and verification procedures. \n\nOn XX/XX/year>, an unknown individual in the United States successfully opened a Chime account using my personal email address, XXXX, without my knowledge or consent. I was first alerted to this when I received a \" Welcome to Chime '' email. \n\nShortly thereafter, I received a second email confirming that a physical debit card had been issued and was being mailed to an address in XXXX XXXX, California. \n\nThe central issue of my complaint is that this entire process the creation of a financial account and the issuance of a debit card was completed without any form of email verification. A simple and standard security measure, such as a double opt-in confirmation link, was never sent. The failure to verify control of the email address is an alarmingly lax security practice for any company, let alone a financial institution. \n\nThis negligence on Chime 's part forced me to spend my own time and money to rectify their error. I had to place an international phone call from XXXX to their XXXX support line at ( XXXX ) XXXX to report the unauthorized use of my email and request its removal from the account. While the support agent was able to resolve the immediate issue, the underlying systemic failure remains. \n\nI strongly urge the CFPB to investigate Chime 's user verification practices. A financial institution that fails to implement fundamental security checks like email verification poses a significant risk to consumers, facilitates identity misuse, and causes undue stress and financial burden for individuals like myself who are inadvertently affected by their procedural shortcomings. \n\nThank you for your time and attention to this serious matter.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-10-05T19:45:19.000Z","issue":"Opening an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"XXXXX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"16374019","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Chime Financial Inc","date_received":"2025-10-05T19:25:58.000Z","state":null,"company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Account opened without my consent or knowledge"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["The central <em>issue</em> of my complaint is that this entire process the creation of a financial account and the <em>issuance</em> of a <em>debit</em> <em>card</em> was completed <em>without</em> any form of email verification. A simple and standard security measure, such as a double opt-in confirmation link, was never sent. The <em>failure</em> to verify control of the email address is an alarmingly lax security practice for any company, let alone a financial institution."],"sub_issue":["Account opened <em>without</em> my consent or knowledge"]},"sort":[23.838072,"16374019"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8884917","_score":22.462542,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"Between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/2024, we were subjected to a distressing series of fraud and identity theft incidents involving our Wells Fargo accounts. These incidents led to unauthorized transactions and the issuance of a duplicate debit card, which we did not receive, resulting in a significant financial loss of {$10000.00}. Despite our prompt reporting of the fraud on the day of discovery, in accordance with Regulation E, Wells Fargo failed to secure our account appropriately. This failure included the negligent issuance of a duplicate debit card and allowing further unauthorized transactions to proceed, contrary to the stipulations for timely action on fraud alerts outlined in 12 CFR 205.6.\n\nWells Fargo erroneously concluded that we authorized these transactions and inappropriately closed our claims without conducting a thorough investigation. They should have informed us about the issuance of the duplicate card ( outside of an email ), which we discovered on our own on XX/XX/XXXX while collating evidence for the XXXX XXXX investigation. Over 19 days, despite numerous inquiries regarding unusual account activities, Wells Fargo neglected to disclose critical information about the duplicate card ; it is evident that the duplicate card we did not order, authorize, receive, or authorize its use was used for fraudulent purchases. \n\nOur long-standing relationship with Wells Fargo has been severely undermined by their inadequate response and mismanagement of our fraud claims. The fraudulent activities began with likely card skimming, leading to unauthorized online transactions and phishing attempts that compromised our debit card PIN. This was followed by unauthorized tele-transfers, a credit card advance, and increases to our daily transaction limits, all without our consent and outside our usual pattern of account activity. The trust we once had in Wells Fargo has been shattered by their negligence, and we now look to the CFPB for assistance and restitution. \n\nThe unauthorized activities included substantial ATM withdrawals totaling {$2000.00} and large unauthorized purchases at XXXX XXXX, where the XXXX Police Department confirmed the transactions were conducted by individuals other than ourselves. Additionally, XXXX XXXX purchases at XXXX XXXX, made by three unrecognized individuals using the fraudulently issued duplicate debit card, further complicate the case. \n\nMost distressingly, the duplicate debit card was physically stolen from our residence and fraudulently signed for ( when we were not home, corroborated by witnesses and GPS location via XXXX ), indicating a severe breach involving physical theft and identity fraud. The series of unauthorized activities and Wells Fargo 's failure to properly investigate or disclose the issuance of the duplicate card represent clear violations of Regulation XXXX, expressly : Timely Reporting : We reported the fraud immediately upon discovery ( within two days ), well within the timeframe required by Regulation E ( 12 CFR 205.6 ( b ) ), which should limit our liability to no more than {$50.00} for transactions made with a fraudulently duplicated card not in our possession. Despite this, when we cited these regulatory protections, the Wells Fargo claims specialist responded dismissively and rudely, inaccurately insisting that these legal protections did not apply to our situation.\n\nFailure to Act on Fraud Notification : Contrary to Regulation E 's requirement for prompt action to prevent further fraud following notification ( 12 CFR 205.6 ( b ) ), Wells Fargo allowed continued unauthorized transactions.\n\nInadequate Investigation and Information Disclosure : Wells Fargo 's failure to investigate the issuance of a duplicate card or the circumstances surrounding the fraudulent transactions breaches the requirement for transparency and thorough investigation under Regulation E ( 12 CFR 205.11 ).\n\nErroneous Claim Closure : The premature closure of our fraud claims without proper resolution or adequate justification violates the procedural requirements for handling disputes under Regulation E ( 12 CFR 205.11 ).\n\nBased on my knowledge, training, and experience as a former Financial Crimes Detective, there is exceptional probable cause that we are the victims of a coordinated scam. We urgently request the CFPB to investigate Wells Fargo 's severe breaches of Regulation E and assist in obtaining restitution for our financial damages. The XXXX Police Department is currently investigating our case, highlighting the severity and complexity of the fraud perpetrated against us. The CFPB 's expertise and commitment to consumer protection will help us in this challenging situation. We are a single XXXX-income family of five, and this ordeal has seriously impacted our finances, work, and emotional well-being.\n\nThe attached attachments to this submission include a full report and 14 Enclosures\ncorroborating the fraud, the phone calls, the fraudulent tele-transfer , the delivery of the fraudulent duplicate card, and evidence that we were not home at the time of the card delivery.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-04-29T15:59:29.000Z","issue":"Problem with a lender or other company charging your account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"22191","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8884917","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2024-04-29T15:49:20.000Z","state":"VA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Transaction was not authorized"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This <em>failure</em> included the negligent <em>issuance</em> of a duplicate <em>debit</em> <em>card</em> and allowing further unauthorized transactions to proceed, contrary to the stipulations for timely action on fraud alerts outlined in 12 CFR 205.6.\n\nWells Fargo erroneously concluded that we authorized these transactions and inappropriately closed our claims <em>without</em> conducting a thorough <em>investigation</em>."]},"sort":[22.462542,"8884917"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"19692471","_score":21.856087,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"Respondent : Santander Bank, N.A. ( federally regulated depository institution ; debit-card issuer ; ACH processor ; final payment gatekeeper for disputed EFTs ) Consumer : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, RI XXXX Date Opened : XX/XX/XXXX ( continuing through XX/XX/XXXX and ongoing ) Case Type : Electronic Fund Transfers ; Debit-Card Disputes ; ACH/Autopay Authorization Failures ; XXXX XXXX XXXX EFTA Violations ; Provisional Credit Denial ; Unauthorized Debit ; Overdraft Manufacturing ; Joint-Actor Payment Failure ( XXXX / XXXX XXXX ) Status XXXX ACTIVE unresolved disputes ; provisional credit denied ; disputed debits allowed during disputes ; overdraft harm ; failure to investigate ; refusal to escalate ; no ACH authorization audit ; no correction as of XX/XX/XXXX. \n\n\n\nXXXX ) XXXX Summary ( Agency-Ready ) This complaint concerns Santander XXXX  systemic failure to protect a consumer deposit account after repeated notice of disputed electronic fund transfers involving ( a ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX debit-card transactions ) and ( b ) XXXX  XXXX, XXXX. ( ACH/autopay debits ). \n\nDespite timely disputes, documented evidence, repeated communications, and clear notice that multiple payment chains were actively disputed and unreliable, Santander : a. Denied provisional credit during active investigations ; b. Failed to conduct reasonable, good-faith investigations ; XXXX Misclassified duplicate and unauthorized transactions ; XXXX Closed disputes without notice, verification, or consumer participation ; XXXX Treated merchant/creditor assertions as dispositive ; XXXX Allowed disputed XXXX debits to post while disputes were unresolved ; XXXX Manufactured overdrafts through bank-controlled timing ( delayed reversals/credits + allowing additional debits to post ) ; h. Refused transfers to Regulation XXXX specialists ; i. Prevented correction of inaccurate dispute records ; and j. Misrepresented causation by attributing harm solely to XXXX or XXXX XXXX, despite XXXX independent statutory duties as the final approving bank. \n\nAs of XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX has issued no provisional credit for multiple disputes, completed no lawful investigation, corrected no overdraft harm, and conducted no XXXX authorization audit. \n\n\n\nXXXX ) Core Allegations ( Regulation XXXX / XXXX ) Santander repeatedly failed to comply with the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1693 et seq. ) and Regulation XXXX ( XXXX C.F.R. XXXX ) by : Denying provisional credit during active investigations ; Failing to conduct reasonable, good-faith investigations ; Misclassifying duplicate and unauthorized transactions ; Allowing disputed XXXX debits to post while disputes were unresolved ; Manufacturing overdrafts through delayed reversals and improper timing ; Misrepresenting causation by attributing harm solely to merchants or creditors ; Obstructing dispute escalation and correction ( including refusal to transfer to Regulation XXXX specialists and preventing correction of dispute records ). \n\nThese failures caused direct financial harm, procedural deprivation, and a systemic consumer-protection breakdown. \n\n\n\nXXXX ) Factual Chronology ( Detailed ) XX/XX/XXXX XXXX confirmed successful XXXX XXXX autopay processed through Santander. \nXX/XX/XXXX XXXX double-charges Santander debit card. \nXX/XX/XXXX XXXX disputes opened with Santander and confirmed by a bank representative. \nXXXX XXXX Santander fails to issue provisional credit as required during the dispute period. \nXX/XX/XXXX Santander issues written denial asserting the transaction was not a duplicate, contrary to evidence. \nXX/XX/XXXX Santander closes disputes without reopening, verification, or consumer notice. \nXX/XX/XXXX Santander internally notes disputes as awaiting provisional credit, contradicting closure. \nXX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX initiates a {$25.00} XXXX debit despite unresolved disputes ; XXXX allows debit to post without authorization confirmation, causing the account to become negative. \nXX/XX/XXXX ( second occurrence ) XXXX XXXX withdraws from the account again, causing an additional overdraft/compounded negative balance. \nReconsideration failure ( post-denial ) Santander stated it would file a reconsideration for the ~ {$45.00} disputed transaction ; a later call confirmed the reconsideration was never filed. \nXX/XX/XXXX Emergency {$100.00} cash withdrawal required due to account instability. \nXX/XX/XXXX No provisional credit issued ; no audit conducted ; no correction made. \n\n\n\nXXXX ) Disputed Transactions ( Specific ) XXXX Debit-card transactions ( XXXX ) XXXX. Duplicate charges totaling approximately {$57.00} ; b. Additional disputed transaction of approximately {$45.00} ; XXXX Disputes closed without lawful investigation ; d. Provisional credit denied and still outstanding. \n\nXXXX XXXX transactions ( XXXX XXXX ) a. Unauthorized or disputed ACH debit ( XXXX ) of {$25.00} ( occurred XXXX  ) ; b. Debits permitted during unresolved disputes ; XXXX No authorization verification provided. \n\nXXXX Overdraft impact a. Negative balance caused by delayed reversals/credits and disputed debits ; b. Overdraft manufactured by Santander processing failures and timing decisions, not consumer conduct. \n\n\n\nXXXX ) Evidence Preserved ( What Santander/CFPB Can Verify ) Santander denial letter dated XX/XX/XXXX ; Account statements reflecting disputed debits and negative balance ; Autopay history confirming last valid XXXX  XXXX payment on XX/XX/XXXX ; Contemporaneous handwritten call logs ; Documentation of Santander refusing to transfer to Regulation XXXX specialists ; Proof of XXXX duplicate charges ; Records showing reversal delays exceeding XXXX week ; Proof of emergency cash withdrawal ; Automated payment-demand emails sent during unresolved disputes. \n\n\n\nXXXX ) Misrepresentation & Obstruction ( Separate from billing error ) Santander : Claimed disputes were resolved when they were not ; Blamed third parties while refusing to reopen disputes ; Repeatedly refused transfers to specialists ; Obstructed complaint documentation and correction ; Promised reconsideration for the ~ {$45.00} dispute and did not file it. \n\n\n\nXXXX ) Joint-Actor Exposure ( Payment Chain ) XXXX originating merchant ( card ) XXXX  XXXX initiating XXXX creditor Santander final approving bank enabling harm after notice Liability/risk attaches due to repeated facilitation after notice and failure to safeguard consumer funds under Regulation XXXX. \n\n\n\nXXXX ) Damages/ Harm Withheld disputed funds during dispute period Unauthorized/disputed XXXX debits ( twice ) Overdraft exposure and compounded overdraft harm Emergency cash withdrawal Ongoing account instability Administrative/procedural burden caused by obstruction and noncompliance XXXX ) Relief Requested ( Copy/Paste ) XXXX. Immediate provisional credit for all disputed debit-card transactions. \nXXXX. Full reversal of overdraft harm and related fees attributable to XXXX handling of disputed EFTs. \nXXXX. Written explanation of all investigation steps taken for each dispute, including basis for denial. \nXXXX. Formal ACH authorization audit for the XXXX XXXX debits ( both occurrences ) and production of any authorization evidence relied upon. \nXXXX. ACH block on disputed originators unless reauthorized in writing. \nXXXX. Correction of dispute records and written confirmation of dispute status history ( open/close/reopen, and why ). \nXXXX. Production/preservation of internal dispute notes, dispute closure documentation, call recordings, and overdraft decision logic. \nXXXX. CFPB regulatory review of XXXX XXXX XXXX compliance, dispute closure practices, and overdraft manufacturing mechanics. \n\n\n\nXXXX XXXX Preservation Demand Santander must preserve all records relating to : XXXX authorization ; Debit initiation metadata ; Internal dispute notes ; Call recordings ; Overdraft decision logic ; Dispute closure documentation.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-02-22T19:56:06.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"02895","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"19692471","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"SANTANDER HOLDINGS USA, INC.","date_received":"2026-02-22T19:25:21.000Z","state":"RI","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Funds not handled or disbursed as instructed"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Respondent : Santander Bank, N.A. ( federally regulated depository institution ; <em>debit</em>-<em>card</em> <em>issuer</em> ; ACH processor ; final payment gatekeeper for disputed EFTs ) Consumer : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, RI XXXX Date Opened : XX/XX/XXXX ( continuing through XX/XX/XXXX and ongoing ) Case Type : Electronic Fund Transfers ; <em>Debit</em>-<em>Card</em> Disputes ; ACH/Autopay Authorization <em>Failures</em> ; XXXX XXXX XXXX EFTA Violations ; Provisional Credit Denial ; Unauthorized <em>Debit</em> ; Overdraft"]},"sort":[21.856087,"19692471"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"20122480","_score":21.21603,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"CFPB Complaint Evidence, Investigation Failure, and XXXX XXXX  Device Data Summary : Wells Fargo issued multiple Final Determinations without conducting a complete investigation, without obtaining or reviewing required evidence, and while providing information that contradicts law enforcement records, devicelevel XXXX XXXX  data, and their own internal timelines. \n\n-- - 1. No Evidence Was Reviewed or Produced Wells Fargo has not produced : ATM footage Transaction analysis Device/IP logs Fraud pattern comparison Internal notes supporting their conclusions Any evidence showing the transactions were authorized The bank issued conclusions without a single piece of supporting evidence.\n\n-- - 2. Required Investigative Steps Were Not Performed The bank did not : Retrieve or review ATM video Contact law enforcement despite an active investigation Reconcile their timeline with my phone records Review the sheriffs report or warrant Compare the disputed transactions to my historical account behavior Review the XXXX XXXX devicelevel authorization data A Regulation E investigation requires actual investigative steps, not assumptions.\n\n-- - 3. XXXX XXXX DeviceLevel Evidence Was Ignored The disputed ATM transaction was performed using a Wells Fargo debit card stored in XXXX XXXX not a physical card. \nThis means the transaction generated devicespecific cryptographic evidence, including : Device Account Number ( DAN ) the tokenized card number unique to my XXXX Transaction Cryptogram a onetime cryptographic signature proving which device initiated the ATM session Token Reference ID linking the card token to my specific device Wallet Authentication Record showing the exact time my device authenticated the transaction Authentication Method Face ID, Touch ID, or passcode used Device Metadata confirming the specific XXXX model and device identifier This data is created automatically by XXXX XXXX and is available to the bank during investigation. \n\nWells Fargo did not request, review, or reference any of this evidence. \n\nThis is a critical investigative failure because the cryptogram and DAN alone can confirm : Which device initiated the ATM session Whether the transaction was authorized by my device Whether the card was provisioned to another device Whether the transaction was legitimate or fraudulent Ignoring this evidence invalidates any Final Determination. \n\n-- - 4. The Bank Provided Information That Conflicts With Reality Wells Fargo issued statements that contradict : Law enforcement documentation The sheriffs report The warrant status My phone records XXXX XXXX devicelevel data Their own internal timelines Their own prior responses These contradictions indicate the bank did not verify facts before issuing determinations. \n\n-- - 5. Final Determinations Were Issued Without Evidence Wells Fargo closed claims while : Evidence was still outstanding The warrant was active No ATM footage had been reviewed No XXXX XXXX device data had been reviewed No timeline reconstruction had been performed No supporting documentation existed A Final Determination can not be issued when the investigation is incomplete. \n\n-- - 6. Pattern of NonResponsiveness and Procedural Breakdown Multiple complaints have remained open for extended periods with no action, and several were closed with : No evidence No investigative detail No reconciliation of contradictions No reference to devicelevel XXXX XXXX  data This pattern suggests a systemic failure to investigate, not an isolated error.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-03-10T10:14:57.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"82009","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"20122480","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2026-03-10T10:10:29.000Z","state":"WY","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Deposits and withdrawals"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["CFPB Complaint Evidence, <em>Investigation</em> <em>Failure</em>, and XXXX XXXX  Device Data Summary : Wells Fargo <em>issued</em> multiple Final Determinations <em>without</em> conducting a complete <em>investigation</em>, <em>without</em> obtaining or reviewing required evidence, and while providing information that contradicts law enforcement records, devicelevel XXXX XXXX  data, and their own internal timelines. \n\n-- - 1."]},"sort":[21.21603,"20122480"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14040791","_score":20.453691,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"Complaint Narrative Billing Error & Unauthorized Charge Focus This complaint concerns Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.s mishandling of repeated unauthorized subscription charges and a subsequent improper re-debit on a closed credit card account, in violation of the Fair Credit Billing Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1666 ), Regulation Z ( 12 C.F.R. 1026.13 ), and protections governing recurring electronic fund transfers.\n\nOn or around XX/XX/year>, I reported recurring unauthorized charges from a subscription service identified as XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, appearing on my XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( ending in XXXX ). I had previously canceled the service, yet charges continued to appear without authorization. \n\nWells Fargo provisionally credited the transactions and issued a new card, pending further investigation. I was advised the matter would be resolved, and that my dispute was being reviewed in accordance with federal billing error procedures. \n\nHowever, shortly after the dispute was filed, Wells Fargo permanently closed my credit card accounta separate issue currently under investigation in another CFPB complaint. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, XXXXnearly three months laterWells Fargo refiled the disputed charge, debiting me {$19.00} again for the same unauthorized subscription, despite the fact that the account remains closed. This raises urgent concerns : Violations and Regulatory Concerns 1. Unauthorized Transaction Liability 15 U.S.C. 1666 & Reg. Z 1026.13 ( f ) The reappearance of a charge previously credited and disputed, without a written explanation, violates mandatory billing error resolution procedures. Wells Fargo never provided notice of reversal or concluded the investigation in writing. \n2. Post-Closure Re-Debit = Procedural Misconduct Refunding a merchant against a permanently closed account suggests either : Wells Fargo reopened the account unilaterally to process the charge, or It is improperly operating closed accounts for merchant recovery.\n\nIn either case, this creates a due process violation and billing system failure. \n3. Failure to Block Recurring Charges After Cancellation UDAAP Risk I had informed the bank that the subscription had been canceled. Their failure to act on this and protect me from further charges violates protections against unauthorized recurring debits under Regulation E analogs and network rules ( e.g., XXXX rules ). \n4. Bad Faith Rebilling After Prior Dispute The fact that this charge was refiled only after I asked Wells Fargo to reopen my accounts suggests the bank is not only mishandling billing errorsbut doubling down in response to prior complaints, a fact that escalates the severity of the conduct.\n\nNotice of Record Preservation I respectfully request that all future communications from Wells Fargo related to this complaint be provided in written form only.\n\nAll responses, explanations, and supporting materials will be treated as part of a formal record and may be submitted as exhibits in any resulting arbitration under the applicable cardholder agreement, or to regulatory bodies if further enforcement action is necessary.\n\nThis matter will continue to be documented in full, with all rights expressly reserved. \n\n\n\nRequested Resolution 1. Immediate reversal of the {$19.00} charge refiled on XX/XX/year>. \n2. Written confirmation that no further charges from XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX or similar will be processed against closed or open accounts. \n3. A written explanation as to why the charge was refiled nearly three months later without prior notice or written investigation outcome.\n\n4. Confirmation that my billing dispute rights were not terminated due to the related account closure.\n\nClarification : Not Duplicate of Pending CFPB Complaint This issue is distinct from CFPB Case # XXXX, which relates to retaliatory account closures and blacklisting. This complaint pertains solely to unauthorized charges, failure to complete a billing error investigation, and improper post-closure rebilling, all of which constitute a new and independent violation under federal law.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-06-12T14:21:22.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"89118","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14040791","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2025-06-12T14:08:27.000Z","state":"NV","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I had previously canceled the service, yet charges continued to appear <em>without</em> authorization. \n\nWells Fargo provisionally credited the transactions and <em>issued</em> a new <em>card</em>, pending further <em>investigation</em>. I was advised the matter would be resolved, and that my dispute was being reviewed in accordance with federal billing error procedures."],"product":["Credit <em>card</em>"],"sub_product":["General-purpose credit <em>card</em> or charge <em>card</em>"],"sub_issue":["Credit <em>card</em> company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"]},"sort":[20.453691,"14040791"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16452298","_score":20.411499,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"I am filing this complaint against Navy Federal Credit Union ( NFCU ) for violating Regulation XXXX  ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) in connection with a credit card billing dispute involving BestBuy.com. NFCU denied my dispute despite clear evidence that the merchant provided contradictory and false information about the transaction. \n\nTimeline of Events XX/XX/year> : I placed an online order with XXXX XXXX for {$740.00}. \n\nXX/XX/year> : XXXX XXXX sent an email confirming the order was canceled and that a refund had been processed. \n\nLater communications from XXXX XXXX conflicted with this, falsely claiming that the merchandise was delivered instead of canceled. \n\nNo delivery ever occurred, and there is no valid signature, photo, or receipt showing that I or anyone in my household accepted delivery. \n\nDespite these contradictions and my documentation proving the order was never received, Navy Federal sided with XXXX XXXX, stating in their final letter that the merchant provided documentation showing that a carrier successfully delivered the merchandise to the address requested. \n\nHowever, Navy Federal never provided me with a copy of this so-called documentation, nor did they conduct an independent investigation as required by Regulation Z ( XXXX CFR XXXX ( f ) ), which mandates a fair review of all consumer evidence. \n\nViolations and Concerns XXXX.Failure to Conduct a Reasonable Investigation : Navy Federal relied solely on Best Buys claims, without validating delivery proof, signature, or merchant contradictions. This violates the requirement under Regulation XXXX that a creditor must conduct a reasonable investigation before denying a billing error claim. \n\nXXXX.Failure to Provide Explanation and Documentation : Their final letter provided no detailed reasoning, no delivery confirmation, and no opportunity for rebuttal only a general statement that the merchant delivered the merchandise. This fails the disclosure and explanation requirement of XXXX ( f ) ( XXXX ). \n\nXXXX.Retaliatory Conduct and Pattern of Mishandling : I have previously filed legitimate disputes and complaints with NFCU, including a large debit card dispute with XXXX that was also mishandled. I believe XXXX XXXX may be engaging in retaliatory or dismissive behavior due to my past CFPB filings and dispute activity. Their repeated pattern of vague responses and denial without proper review strongly suggests bias or procedural negligence. \n\nXXXX.Delay and Procedural Misrepresentation : In earlier correspondence, Navy Federal stated it could take up to 4 months for resolution and that a temporary credit may not be issued. This is misleading and inconsistent with Regulation XXXX  timelines ( billing error resolution must be completed within 90 days of notification ).","date_sent_to_company":"2025-10-08T15:00:17.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"33884","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"16452298","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","date_received":"2025-10-08T13:32:52.000Z","state":"FL","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":["XXXX.Retaliatory Conduct and Pattern of Mishandling : I have previously filed legitimate disputes and complaints with NFCU, including a large <em>debit</em> <em>card</em> dispute with XXXX that was also mishandled. I believe XXXX XXXX may be engaging in retaliatory or dismissive behavior due to my past CFPB filings and dispute activity. Their repeated pattern of vague responses and denial <em>without</em> proper review strongly suggests bias or <em>procedural</em> negligence."],"product":["Credit <em>card</em>"],"sub_product":["General-purpose credit <em>card</em> or charge <em>card</em>"],"sub_issue":["Credit <em>card</em> company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"]},"sort":[20.411499,"16452298"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"19693304","_score":19.494354,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"Entity : Capital One Bank ( Issuer Servicer Furnisher ) Consumer : XXXX XXXX Accounts : XXXX Capital One credit card accounts ( including but not limited to accounts ending XXXX and XXXX ) Primary Issue : Autopay Failure + Internal System Error Admission + Audit Refusal + Inaccurate/Unstable Furnishing I. XXXX XXXX at XXXX This complaint concerns systemic servicing instability and inaccurate credit furnishing by Capital One across XXXX separate accounts. \n\nThis is not a consumer nonpayment case. \n\nThis is a failure of issuer-controlled payment mechanisms ( autopay + card lock ), followed by fee assessment, delinquency pressure, and refusal to provide a written audit or furnishing confirmation after admitting internal system error. \n\n\n\nXXXX. Autopay Failure Issuer-Controlled Mechanism Breakdown XX/XX/year> Last successful autopay processed. \nXX/XX/year> Scheduled autopay did not process. \n\nI received no advance notice that : Autopay had been XXXX, Autopay had disconnected, or Autopay was no longer active.\n\nWhen I contacted Capital One, representatives gave conflicting explanations : Autopay was not set up.\n\nAutopay was set up.\n\nAutopay may have disconnected. \nI was warned late fees would accrue unless I paid immediately. \n\nThese contradictions occurred across multiple accounts simultaneously. \n\nAutopay is an issuer-controlled risk mitigation system. When it fails without notice, penalizing the consumer constitutes unfair servicing. \n\n\n\nXXXX. Late Fees, Interest, and System Error Admission Late fees and interest were assessed after the autopay failure. \n\nOn XX/XX/year> : XXXX XXXX  Agent XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX admitted there was an internal application/system error. \n\nFollowing escalation : Late fees were retroactively waived within XXXX  days. \n\nThis waiver confirms issuer fault. \n\nHowever : No written audit was provided. \nNo written autopay status history was produced. \nNo system error documentation was issued. \nNo furnishing correction confirmation was provided. \n\nFee waiver without audit transparency does not cure furnishing or servicing violations. \n\n\n\nIV. Card Lock + Audit Refusal After the autopay failure, I placed card locks to prevent additional transactions. \n\nI requested written confirmation of : Card lock timestamps Any post-lock transactions Autopay enable/disable logs Internal servicing notes Furnishing decision records Capital One refused to provide a full audit or written documentation confirming lock integrity or reporting accuracy. \n\nIf transactions occurred while cards were locked, that implicates unauthorized processing risk. \n\nIf no transactions occurred, Capital One should be able to confirm that in writing. \n\nThey refused. \n\n\n\nV. Inconsistent Account States Across XXXX Accounts Screenshots during the relevant period show : Differing autopay status indicators across accounts Inconsistent past-due indicators Utilization distortions Conflicting internal account states This occurred simultaneously across XXXX accounts. \n\nThis is systemic instability, not isolated error. \n\nDespite admitting system error and waiving fees, Capital One : Maintained delinquency pressure Allowed utilization inflation Failed to confirm correction of furnishing Failed to confirm suppression of inaccurate reporting VI. Furnisher Duties FCRA Exposure Capital One is a credit furnisher under XXXX U.S.C. XXXX. \n\nOnce notified of : Autopay failure, Internal system error, Disputed account integrity, Audit request, Capital One had a duty to ensure : Maximum possible accuracy in furnishing Reasonable investigation of disputes Correction of inaccurate or unstable data Continuing to furnish delinquency or inflated utilization during known servicing instability violates furnisher accuracy obligations. \n\n\n\nXXXX. XXXX  Concerns This conduct constitutes : Unfair Penalizing the consumer during issuer-controlled system failure. \nUsing delinquency leverage without audit transparency. \n\nDeceptive Conflicting statements about autopay status. \nConflicting account-state explanations. \n\nAbusive Exploiting credit-reporting pressure while denying access to audit data necessary to verify the account. \n\n\n\nXXXX. Harm Financial : Late fees and interest assessed ( waived only after escalation ) Distorted balances during system failure Credit : Utilization inflation Past-due appearance Risk of derogatory furnishing Procedural : Loss of confidence in issuer-controlled safeguards Forced escalation Administrative burden across XXXX accounts Systemic : Simultaneous instability across multiple accounts suggests pattern-and-practice servicing weakness XXXX. Continued External Account Debiting After Dispute Notice In addition to the servicing failures described above, Capital One has continued initiating XXXX withdrawals from my external XXXX deposit account despite my active dispute of payment amounts and rate concerns. \n\nFacts : I disputed payment amounts due to high rates and account integrity concerns. \nDespite dispute notice, Capital One continued to initiate XXXX pulls from my XXXX account. \nThese debits occurred while : Autopay functionality was in question, System error had been admitted, Audit transparency had been refused, Account balances and fees were disputed. \n\nThis conduct raises additional compliance concerns. \n\n\n\nXXXX. Regulatory Concerns Raised by Continued ACH Pulls XXXX. Authorization Validity If payment terms, balances, or servicing logic are disputed, continued automated debiting raises questions about whether authorization remains valid under the circumstances. \nXXXX. Dispute Handling Integrity Once a creditor has notice that : The balance is disputed, The rates are contested, Servicing defects exist, Autopay status is unstable, continuing automated withdrawals without resolving the dispute XXXX constitute unfair or abusive conduct. \nXXXX. Regulation Z / Billing Error Context Under XXXX C.F.R. XXXX, creditors must properly handle billing disputes and can not use collection pressure mechanisms to override unresolved error claims. \nXXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX debits from a separate institution ( Santander ) while refusing to provide a full audit or furnishing confirmation creates leverage imbalance and procedural unfairness. \n\n\n\nXXXX. Systemic Pattern Capital One : Allowed autopay to fail, Admitted internal system error, Waived fees after escalation, Refused audit transparency, Maintained furnishing instability, AND continued external ACH pulls during active disputes. \n\nThis demonstrates a pattern of : Servicing instability Fee assessment Dispute Partial correction Continued automated extraction. \n\nThat is not compliant dispute handling. \n\n\n\nXXXX. Additional Harm Because Capital One continued pulling funds from XXXX : My external deposit stability was affected. \nBudgeting and account predictability were compromised. \nI was forced to monitor multiple institutions due to issuer servicing defects. \nRisk of overdraft exposure increased at the external bank. \n\nThis extends harm beyond XXXX XXXX  internal ledger.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-02-22T22:30:35.000Z","issue":"Fees or interest","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"02895","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"19693304","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","date_received":"2026-02-22T22:21:39.000Z","state":"RI","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Problem with fees"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This waiver confirms <em>issuer</em> fault. \n\nHowever : No written audit was provided. \nNo written autopay status history was produced. \nNo system error documentation was <em>issued</em>. \nNo furnishing correction confirmation was provided. \n\nFee waiver <em>without</em> audit transparency does not cure furnishing or servicing violations. \n\n\n\nIV. <em>Card</em> Lock + Audit Refusal After the autopay <em>failure</em>, I placed <em>card</em> locks to prevent additional transactions."],"product":["Credit <em>card</em>"],"sub_product":["General-purpose credit <em>card</em> or charge <em>card</em>"]},"sort":[19.494354,"19693304"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"19524404","_score":19.413015,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"Consumer Complaint Narrative Account Closure Following Active Dispute I am submitting this complaint to document the escalation of harm that occurred while my prior complaint was actively under review by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and to explain the circumstances surrounding the formal closure of my SoFi Bank, N.A. accounts in XXXX XXXX \n\nAfter discovering a series of unauthorized electronic transactions connected to non-physical, app-based merchants using frequently changing identifiers, I immediately contacted SoFi and repeatedly requested intervention. From the outset, I explained that these were not traditional card-present transactions and asked that the activity be stopped or restricted, including limiting transactions to my physical card only. I was informed that action could not be taken until the transactions fully posted, despite my early warnings that additional withdrawals were imminent. \n\nOnce the transactions posted, I formally disputed them and requested stop-payment protections. SoFi later acknowledged that a stop payment had been entered ; however, this action proved ineffective because the merchants continuously changed their billing identifiers. Each new debit appeared under a different merchant name, allowing withdrawals to continue despite my notice and requests for protection. This structural issue was repeatedly communicated to SoFi, yet meaningful preventative measures were not implemented. \n\nDuring the dispute process, SoFi issued a provisional credit. Rather than securing the account after issuing that credit, SoFi allowed the same merchant ecosystem to continue accessing the account. As a result, the provisional funds were withdrawn through newly altered merchant identifiers, creating an overdraft balance of approximately {$6000.00}. This overdraft was not caused by new spending or consumer action but arose directly from SoFis failure to prevent continued debits after fraud had been reported and acknowledged.\n\nWhile my CFPB complaint remained active, SoFi contacted me by telephone in XXXX XXXX and informed me that my accounts would be closed, citing the overdraft balance created under these circumstances. The closure occurred despite the fact that the overdraft itself stemmed from disputed transactions and from the banks handling of the provisional credit during an ongoing investigation. \n\nThroughout this process, SoFi repeatedly stated that it had collaborated with merchants and other financial institutions regarding the disputed activity. However, none of the substance of those communications was disclosed to me. I was not provided meaningful information about which entities were contacted, what findings were made, or how those findings justified denying reimbursement. As the consumer directly affected, I was left without transparency into decisions that materially impacted my financial standing. \n\nThe timing of the account closure occurring while a CFPB complaint was pending raises serious concerns. Instead of resolving the dispute or addressing the procedural failures identified in my complaint, SoFi terminated the banking relationship based on consequences created by unresolved disputed transactions. This action compounded the financial harm and deprived me of access to banking services during an active regulatory review. \n\nThis complaint is therefore submitted to address the following concerns : Failure to implement effective protections after timely notice of unauthorized electronic transfers Reliance on stop-payment measures known to be ineffective against merchants using rotating identifiers Issuance of a provisional credit without securing the account against continued withdrawals Creation of a substantial overdraft balance resulting from unresolved disputed activity Lack of transparency regarding alleged collaboration with merchants and financial institutions Closure of accounts during an active CFPB dispute, resulting in additional financial and procedural harm I am seeking regulatory review to determine whether SoFi complied with its obligations under consumer financial protection laws and whether the handling of my disputes and subsequent account closure deprived me of protections afforded to consumers reporting unauthorized electronic transfers. \n\nI respectfully request a full investigation and a resolution that restores me to the financial position I occupied prior to these events and ensures that similarly situated consumers are not subjected to the same sequence of preventable harms.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-02-16T13:21:26.000Z","issue":"Closing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"711XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"19524404","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"SOFI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.","date_received":"2026-02-16T13:08:45.000Z","state":"LA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Company closed your account"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["As the consumer directly affected, I was left <em>without</em> transparency into decisions that materially impacted my financial standing. \n\nThe timing of the account closure occurring while a CFPB complaint was pending raises serious concerns. Instead of resolving the dispute or addressing the <em>procedural</em> <em>failures</em> identified in my complaint, SoFi terminated the banking relationship based on consequences created by unresolved disputed transactions."]},"sort":[19.413015,"19524404"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"19421674","_score":19.19808,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX ( Issued by The XXXX XXXX XXXX ) Complaint I am filing a formal complaint regarding Aspires improper handling of a disputed fraudulent MoneyGram transaction and its apparent failure to comply with the Fair Credit Billing Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1666 ) and Regulation Z ( 12 CFR 1026.13 ). \n\nI timely reported a fraudulent XXXX charge on my Aspire credit card. XXXX acknowledged the dispute and issued a provisional credit. Without providing a legally sufficient written explanation or documentation demonstrating that the charge was authorized, Aspire reversed the provisional credit and re-debited the full disputed amount to my account. \n\nThis action caused my account to exceed its {$500.00} credit limit solely due to a charge I did not authorize. \n\nAspires actions appear to violate federal billing dispute protections by : Reversing a provisional credit without a compliant written determination Failing to provide documentation showing the charge was authorized Continuing to impose financial burden during an unresolved fraud dispute Placing my account in over-limit status due entirely to a disputed fraudulent transaction Exposing me to potential negative credit reporting and financial harm At no point was I provided sufficient evidence that the transaction was valid or authorized by me. The burden has improperly shifted to the consumer while Aspire has not demonstrated compliance with its investigative obligations.\n\nHarm As a direct result of Aspires conduct : My account reflects a balance exceeding the credit limit due solely to fraud I face potential credit score damage Interest and fees may accrue improperly I am being required to make payments on a charge I did not authorize This creates ongoing financial and credit risk while Aspire has not demonstrated procedural compliance.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-02-11T17:02:37.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"10314","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"19421674","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Atlanticus Services Corporation","date_received":"2026-02-11T16:48:26.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","sub_issue":"Card was charged for something you did not purchase with the card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["XXXX XXXX ( <em>Issued</em> by The XXXX XXXX XXXX ) Complaint I am filing a formal complaint regarding Aspires improper handling of a disputed fraudulent MoneyGram transaction and its apparent <em>failure</em> to comply with the Fair Credit Billing Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1666 ) and Regulation Z ( 12 CFR 1026.13 ). \n\nI timely reported a fraudulent XXXX charge on my Aspire credit <em>card</em>. XXXX acknowledged the dispute and <em>issued</em> a provisional credit."],"product":["Credit <em>card</em>"],"sub_product":["General-purpose credit <em>card</em> or charge <em>card</em>"],"sub_issue":["<em>Card</em> was charged for something you did not purchase with the <em>card</em>"]},"sort":[19.19808,"19421674"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18329005","_score":18.977278,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"I am filing a complaint against M & T Bank for failure to comply with Regulation E ( 12 CFR 1005 ) in connection with denied fraud claim # XXXX involving unauthorized debit card transactions. \n\nM & T Bank denied my claim by asserting that the transactions were authorized, despite the following undisputed facts : I retained physical possession of my debit card at all times. \nI did not authorize these transactions, nor did I authorize any individual, device, or digital wallet to use my card or account credentials. \nM & T Bank represented that the transactions involved token usage, yet the transactions occurred at physical brick-and-mortar retail locations, not online. \nThe transactions occurred at multiple locations in different regions, which is inconsistent with cardholder presence or authorization. \nI was provided with exact timestamps of the transactions by an M & T representative ( written below in the photo provided ), and I was working during those times. I can provide documentary proof of my work schedule and presence if requested. I did not provision my debit card to any device other than my own, and I did not authorize tokenized or digital wallet use. M & T Bank appears to have relied on system or network authorization ( token validation ) rather than determining whether I, the consumer, authorized the electronic fund transfers, which does not satisfy Regulation XXXX requirements. In addition to the improper substantive determination, M & T Banks handling of this claim involved significant procedural and access barriers : The denial letter is dated XX/XX/year> and was mailed from XXXX, New York, while I reside in XXXX, New York. I did not receive the letter until XX/XX/year>, after business hours. During the period between issuance and receipt of the letter, I attempted to obtain information but was unable to speak with anyone from the investigations department, and customer service representatives stated they could not provide details because it was not their department. \nI was also unable to resolve the issue in a branch or obtain investigation details, and was informed that any supporting information could only be provided by mail. At which point the provisional credit funds would already be revoked, causing me serious financial harm. There is no access to submit formal complaint letters. M & T has no email for customer support nor does it offer secure online messaging on my portal account. Additionally, M & T Bank relied heavily on financial and technical jargon ( including terms such as token usage, authorized, and properly processed ) without providing clear, plain-language explanations of how these terms established consumer authorization. This created a further barrier to my understanding. The use of unexplained technical terminology in place of clear disclosures contributed to confusion and undermined my ability to exercise my rights under Regulation E. I additionally have a recording of my phone call should that be necessary to submit for further review.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-12-28T17:25:57.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"109XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18329005","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"M&T BANK CORPORATION","date_received":"2025-12-28T17:06:28.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Problem using a debit or ATM card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I am filing a complaint against M & T Bank for <em>failure</em> to comply with Regulation E ( 12 CFR 1005 ) in connection with denied fraud claim # XXXX involving unauthorized <em>debit</em> <em>card</em> transactions. \n\nM & T Bank denied my claim by asserting that the transactions were authorized, despite the following undisputed facts : I retained physical possession of my <em>debit</em> <em>card</em> at all times."],"sub_issue":["Problem using a <em>debit</em> or ATM <em>card</em>"]},"sort":[18.977278,"18329005"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17961272","_score":18.937403,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"My vehicle was stolen on XX/XX/year>, along with my debit card, state ID, drivers license, and multiple electronic devices that had access to my financial accounts. An unauthorized electronic fund transfer was made on XX/XX/XXXX, after the theft. I did not see or become aware of the unauthorized transfer until XX/XX/XXXX, when the transaction posted, and I reported it to Wells Fargo immediately. \n\nWells Fargo issued a provisional credit of {$490.00} but reversed it on or around XX/XX/year>. The bank denied the claim without providing the documents relied upon. Under 12 C.F.R. 1005.11 ( d ) ( 1 ), a financial institution must provide the documents relied on before reversing provisional credit. Wells Fargo told me they would mail the documents within up to 30 days, but I never received any documents. The reversal was procedurally invalid.\n\nWells Fargos stated reason for denial was that the transaction was a no card present transaction that could not have involved the physical debit card. However, when I filed the claim, I informed Wells Fargo that my debit card, my identification, and all electronic devices linked to my accounts were stolen in the XX/XX/XXXX vehicle theft. This gave the fraudster full ability to impersonate me and conduct transactions as if they were me. At the time of my initial claim, I provided the police report incident number XXXX and told Wells Fargo I would submit the full police report once it was completed. Wells Fargo did not consider this information and did not wait for the full report before denying the claim.\n\nBecause I reported the unauthorized transfer within two business days of discovering it, my liability is capped at {$50.00} under 12 C.F.R. 1005.6 ( b ) ( 1 ). Wells Fargo nevertheless held me liable for the full {$490.00}. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I submitted the completed police report documenting the XX/XX/XXXX theft of my vehicle, identification, debit card, and electronic devices. On the same day, I submitted an XXXX accommodation request due to XXXX-related communication needs and requested acknowledgment. \n\nNo acknowledgment was provided, so on XX/XX/XXXX, I called Wells Fargo and asked them to review the secure messages I sent on XX/XX/XXXX and to provide written confirmation by the end of the business day. No response was provided. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, having still received no acknowledgment of either the police report or the XXXX request, I sent another secure follow-up message. Again, no acknowledgment was provided. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I called again to ask why neither submission had been acknowledged. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX ( the day before XXXX ), I called again and asked to speak with my assigned case manager, XXXX. I explained that XXXX Title III requires an interactive process and timely, effective communication, and that Wells Fargos failure to acknowledge my XXXX request for more than four days violated 28 C.F.R. 36.303 ( c ). I explained that the police report was clear evidence of unauthorized use and that Regulation E requires prompt correction of procedural errors under 12 C.F.R. 1005.11 ( e ). The representative told me that XXXX was aware of my concerns, aware that I was considering reporting these violations to regulators, and was physically present in the office, but did not have time to speak with me. Wells Fargo still did not acknowledge my police report or XXXX request. \n\nWells Fargo continues routing this matter to its Executive Complaints/XXXX  XXXX, which applies internal complaint timelines ( including a XX/XX/XXXX target date ) that conflict with Regulation E. Internal complaint workflows can not extend or replace federal timelines under 12 C.F.R. 1005.11 ( e ), which requires prompt correction of procedural violations.\n\nTo date, Wells Fargo has : reversed provisional credit without providing required documents ; exceeded the {$50.00} liability cap under 1005.6 ( b ) ( 1 ) ; failed to acknowledge or incorporate a police report submitted XXXX XXXX ; failed to acknowledge an XXXX request submitted XXXX XXXX ; failed to provide effective communication for more than four days ; refused communication even when the case manager was aware and available ; attempted to impose new internal deadlines inconsistent with Regulation E ; and failed to conduct a reasonable investigation under 1005.11 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( ii ).","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-28T19:51:36.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"169XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17961272","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2025-11-28T18:50:15.000Z","state":"PA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Deposits and withdrawals"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Wells Fargos stated reason for denial was that the transaction was a no <em>card</em> present transaction that could not have involved the physical <em>debit</em> <em>card</em>. However, when I filed the claim, I informed Wells Fargo that my <em>debit</em> <em>card</em>, my identification, and all electronic devices linked to my accounts were stolen in the XX/XX/XXXX vehicle theft. This gave the fraudster full ability to impersonate me and conduct transactions as if they were me."]},"sort":[18.937403,"17961272"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"15214712","_score":18.91322,"_source":{"product":"Payday loan, title loan, personal loan, or advance loan","complaint_what_happened":"On XX/XX/year>, I received a loan from Sunshine Loans. I repaid it in full via debit card on XX/XX/XXXX, but their system continued to send false Returned Payment notices, incorrectly marking my account as delinquent. These notices persisted despite confirmed payment and staff acknowledgment, indicating internal servicing failures. \n> > On XX/XX/XXXX, I applied for a new loan. Sunshine Loans denied it citing unverifiable income and returned items, without specifying the source or timeframe. If they relied on internal failed payment attempts caused by their own system errors, this misrepresents consumer behavior and violates UDAAP standards. \n> > The denial notice included a broken link to the Notice of Adverse Action ( NOAA ). I had to request a corrected version multiple times. The final NOAA contained formatting errors and a misspelling of their own company name, undermining its legal clarity.\n\n> > On XX/XX/XXXX, I submitted another application around XXXXXXXX XXXX. Sunshine Loans denied it at XXXXXXXX XXXXless than two hours laterbefore I could upload income verification. They did not issue a Notice of Incompleteness or allow me to complete the application, violating 12 CFR 1002.9 ( c ) under ECOA. \n> > Throughout this period, Sunshine Loans sent promotional emails encouraging me to reapply, despite having blocked my applications and denied me based on incomplete or incorrect data. Their communications were templated, evasive, and failed to address direct questions. \n> > I was not given a fair opportunity to complete or correct my application. This reflects a pattern of procedural failure and deceptive practices under ECOA and UDAAP. I am requesting an investigation into their denial practices, adverse action procedures, and internal servicing controls.\n\n> > I have included the full email correspondence beginning with my initial complaint and ending with their final explanation.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-08-11T14:55:47.000Z","issue":"Loan payment wasn't credited to your account","sub_product":"Payday loan","zip_code":"92101","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"15214712","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"MoneySpot USA LLC DBA Sunshine Loans","date_received":"2025-08-11T14:32:23.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I repaid it in full via <em>debit</em> <em>card</em> on XX/XX/XXXX, but their system continued to send false Returned Payment notices, incorrectly marking my account as delinquent. These notices persisted despite confirmed payment and staff acknowledgment, indicating internal servicing <em>failures</em>. \n> > On XX/XX/XXXX, I applied for a new loan. Sunshine Loans denied it citing unverifiable income and returned items, <em>without</em> specifying the source or timeframe."]},"sort":[18.91322,"15214712"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"19120050","_score":18.82687,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"CFPB COMPLAINT Against : Chime Financial , Inc. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX \n\nProduct : Checking Account / Debit Card Issue Type : Unauthorized Transactions ; Improper Dispute Handling Primary Law : Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ) & Regulation E ( 12 C.F.R. Part 1005 ) WHAT HAPPENED I am submitting this complaint regarding Chime Financial , Inc. and its partner bank, XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX, for ongoing and unresolved violations of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ) and Regulation E in connection with my disputes of unauthorized electronic fund transfers.\n\nI timely reported multiple unauthorized debit card transactions totaling {$7300.00}. These transactions occurred across multiple dates and were formally reported beginning XX/XX/XXXX, with additional written disputes, rebuttals, and follow-up requests submitted thereafter. Despite timely notice and full cooperation, Chime and\nXXXX XXXX\n\nfailed to comply with Regulation Es mandatory requirements for investigation, documentation, explanation of findings, and disclosure of evidence relied upon. KEY VIOLATIONS BY CHIME AND XXXX XXXX 1 ) Issuance of conclusory denials without\nlawful explanation Chime issued final determinations on multiple claims ( including, but not limited to, Claim ID # XXXX ) dated XXXX XXXX XXXX, stating only that no error occurred. \n\nThese determinations did not provide a meaningful explanation of how the transactions were determined to be authorized, nor did they identify the specific evidence relied upon, as required under 12 C.F.R. 1005.11 ( d ).\n\nConclusory statements without evidentiary explanation do not satisfy Regulation E.\n\n2 ) Failure to provide copies of documents relied upon ( direct violation of 1005.11 ( d ) ) On XX/XX/XXXX, I formally requested copies of all documents relied upon in making the dispute determinations, as expressly permitted under 12 C.F.R. 1005.11 ( d ). \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, Chime provided only : An account statement listing the disputed transactions ; and An internal intake form created during my initial phone call.\n\nThese materials are not the documents relied upon to deny my disputes and do not satisfy Regulation Es disclosure requirements. \n\nChime explicitly statedboth previously and again through XXXX XXXXthat its determinations relied on : Login & authentication history Device and/or location data Fraud alert responses Transaction processing records Phone and account access logs None of these documents were produced.\n\n3 ) Explicit refusal to produce relied-upon evidence ( ongoing non-compliance ) On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX responded in writing and stated that : The investigation relied on device and/or location information ; Some information relied upon is internal and not allowed to be provided ; and The claims would remain denied.\n\nThis response confirms that Chime and XXXX XXXX  relied on specific evidence while refusing to provide copies of that evidence. \n\nRegulation E contains no exception allowing financial institutions to withhold documents relied upon on the basis that they are internal or proprietary. If information was relied upon, it must be produced ( with redactions if necessary ).\n\nThis written refusal constitutes a continuing and admitted violation of 12 C.F.R. 1005.11 ( d ).\n\n4 ) Procedurally defective investigations and determinations Because Chime and XXXX XXXX  failed to provide the documents relied upon : The investigations can not be meaningfully reviewed or challenged ; The determinations are procedurally defective ; and The denials are legally invalid under Regulation E.\n\nAdditionally, Chime and XXXX  provided inconsistent & contradictory statements regarding whether claims were pending, final, or still under investigation, further undermining the integrity of the dispute process.\n\nWHY THIS MATTERS Regulation E requires financial institutions to : Conduct reasonable, good-faith investigations ; Provide clear, evidence-based explanations for dispute determinations ; and Provide copies of all documents relied upon when requested.\n\nChime Financial , Inc. and XXXX XXXX XXXX. failed to comply with these obligations despite repeated notice and a reasonable opportunity to cure. \n\nTheir refusal to provide relied-upon evidence deprived me of access to funds, denied me a lawful review process, and prevented me from exercising my rights under federal law.\n\nWHAT I AM REQUESTING I respectfully request that the CFPB require Chime Financial , Inc. and XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX. to : Comply with Regulation E by producing all documents and records actually relied upon in denying my disputed claims ; Reverse or credit the disputed amounts where procedural violations invalidate the determinations ; Correct their dispute-handling practices to prevent continued non-compliance ; and Provide written confirmation of corrective action taken.\n\nSUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION I am prepared to provide : Dispute correspondence and rebuttals Chime determination letters Email communications from XXXX XXXX  ( including XX/XX/XXXX response ) Proof of document requests & incomplete responses FINAL NOTE TO CFPB This complaint reflects a pattern of procedural non-compliance, not a single isolated error. Chime and XXXX XXXX  have now confirmed in writing that they relied on evidence they refuse to produce. I respectfully request supervisory & enforcement review.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-01-30T01:02:45.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"30052","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"19120050","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Chime Financial Inc","date_received":"2026-01-30T00:16:05.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Problem using a debit or ATM card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["XXXX XXXX XXXX \n\nProduct : Checking Account / <em>Debit</em> <em>Card</em> <em>Issue</em> Type : Unauthorized Transactions ; Improper Dispute Handling Primary Law : Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ) & Regulation E ( 12 C.F.R."],"sub_issue":["Problem using a <em>debit</em> or ATM <em>card</em>"]},"sort":[18.82687,"19120050"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"21014271","_score":18.767586,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"I am filing a complaint regarding SoFi Banks handling of a debit card fraud dispute involving phishing impersonation and subsequent reversal of provisional credit before a proper review was completed. \n\nOn XX/XX/year>, I was the victim of a phishing scam impersonating XXXX account verification using XXXX XXXX. I believed I was completing account verification and did not intend to make any purchase or buy XXXX. XXXX debit card transactions were processed without my informed consent : {$980.00} ( XXXX ) and {$390.00} ( XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ). \n\nI reported the activity immediately, including confirming fraud in real time when prompted by SoFi, and contacted the bank within minutes. I also filed an FTC report ( Report # XXXX ). \n\nSoFi initially issued provisional credit for both transactions. On XX/XX/year>, SoFi denied the {$390.00} claim, stating that services were rendered. \n\nI requested documentation supporting this decision on XX/XX/XXXX and again on XX/XX/XXXX. I was told it would be provided within 1 to 2 business days, but it was not provided within that timeframe. \n\nOn XX/XX/year>, SoFi both : Finally provided the requested documentation, and Reversed the provisional credit of {$390.00} from my account This occurred before I had a meaningful opportunity to review the evidence and respond. \n\nAfter reviewing the documentation, I submitted additional information explaining that this transaction resulted from phishing impersonation and was not knowingly authorized. The merchant evidence provided only confirms that cryptocurrency was delivered and does not address lack of intent, deception, or fraud. \n\nOn XX/XX/year>, SoFi acknowledged my new information and reopened the claim for further investigation. \n\nThis creates a procedural issue where : The claim was denied and funds were removed Documentation was delayed beyond the promised timeframe The case was reopened only after the funds were already taken The dispute has been treated as both closed and under active investigation Additionally, the merchant documentation references an email address that is not mine, which raises further concerns about authorization and identity. \n\nI am requesting that SoFi : Reevaluate this claim under fraud and phishing criteria rather than services rendered Address the failure to provide timely documentation before reversing funds Clarify how a claim can be both denied and under active investigation Restore the disputed funds while the investigation is ongoing This transaction was not a legitimate purchase but the result of deception through phishing impersonation, and the handling of this dispute has not followed a fair or consistent process.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-04-07T16:20:06.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"48346","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"21014271","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"SOFI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.","date_received":"2026-04-07T15:52:17.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Problem using a debit or ATM card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["XXXX <em>debit</em> <em>card</em> transactions were processed <em>without</em> my informed consent : {$980.00} ( XXXX ) and {$390.00} ( XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ). \n\nI reported the activity immediately, including confirming fraud in real time when prompted by SoFi, and contacted the bank within minutes. I also filed an FTC report ( Report # XXXX ). \n\nSoFi initially <em>issued</em> provisional credit for both transactions. On XX/XX/year>, SoFi denied the {$390.00} claim, stating that services were rendered."],"sub_issue":["Problem using a <em>debit</em> or ATM <em>card</em>"]},"sort":[18.767586,"21014271"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18634551","_score":18.76667,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"I am filing this complaint regarding a second fraud dispute with Chime Financial , Inc., Claim No. XXXX, involving 49 unauthorized person-to-person ( P2P ) transactions. Chime separated this claim from my other dispute solely because the transactions were categorized as person-to-person. \nThe disputed P2P transactions occurred while I was incarcerated. During this time, I did not have possession of my phone, debit card, account credentials, or access to the internet, and I could not have initiated, authorized, approved, or benefited from any person-to-person transfers. I did not share credentials or provide authorization to any third party. \nI timely reported these transactions as unauthorized. Chime has acknowledged that the claim is under investigation but has denied required consumer protections during the investigation. Specifically, Chime has refused provisional credit without identifying or citing any specific Regulation E provision or exception, failed to explain how these transactions could be authorized while I was incarcerated, and failed to disclose what evidence was reviewed. \nChime has also obstructed the dispute process by refusing manual review, refusing escalation to a supervisor or escalation team, and relying on automated determinations. I provided material evidence, including proof of incarceration and a police report documenting identity theft and fraud, yet Chime has not confirmed that this evidence was considered in its investigation. \nAlthough this claim remains under investigation and no final determination has been issued, Chimes refusal to provide provisional credit, refusal to conduct a reasonable manual investigation, and failure to explain its reliance on automation violate the error-resolution and consumer-protection requirements of Regulation E ( 12 CFR 1005 ), including its requirements for reasonable investigation and meaningful access to dispute resolution.Chime denied provisional credit and denied multiple procedural requests during the investigation, including manual review of the person-to-person transactions, escalation, written explanation under Regulation E, and confirmation that evidence such as proof of incarceration and a police report was considered.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-01-11T12:50:03.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"95207","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18634551","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Chime Financial Inc","date_received":"2026-01-11T12:06:41.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Problem using a debit or ATM card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Although this claim remains under <em>investigation</em> and no final determination has been <em>issued</em>, Chimes refusal to provide provisional credit, refusal to conduct a reasonable manual <em>investigation</em>, and <em>failure</em> to explain its reliance on automation violate the error-resolution and consumer-protection requirements of Regulation E ( 12 CFR 1005 ), including its requirements for reasonable <em>investigation</em> and meaningful access to dispute resolution.Chime denied provisional credit and denied multiple <em>procedural</em>"],"sub_issue":["Problem using a <em>debit</em> or ATM <em>card</em>"]},"sort":[18.76667,"18634551"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14930578","_score":18.444715,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"In XX/XX/XXXX, my business, XXXX XXXX, XXXX, processed a {$25000.00} charge for a client using Chase XXXX XXXX. The charge was for a broker fee tied to an introduction and business consulting engagement, and it was fully authorized by the cardholder. I have a signed invoice and a credit card authorization form from the client on file. The funds cleared without issue. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, Chase initially flagged the transaction and requested documentation before approving it. I promptly submitted the requested proof, including the invoice and signed authorization form. Chase reviewed the materials and allowed the transaction to proceed, indicating no issue with the charge at that time ( Chase Case # XXXX ). \n\nUnbeknownst to me, on XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX sent a retrieval request to Chase XXXX XXXX. However, I was never notified of this request, not by email, phone, mail, or secure message, and therefore had no opportunity to respond or submit supporting documentation. Chase later confirmed the notice was mailed via XXXX, but I never received it. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, my Chase business checking account was debited {$25000.00} without warning. I only discovered the debit after it occurred. When I called Chase, I was told I missed the deadline to respond to the chargeback, and that my case had been closed and ruled in favor of the cardholder. Despite multiple phone calls and formal letters to Chase XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX ( Chases merchant arm ), I was informed that no further documentation could be submitted. \n\nI later obtained the cardholders original dispute narrative and found it contains materially false claims. The cardholder references traffic camera installation, delivery delays, and terms and conditions that supposedly bound my company to certain obligations. However, XXXX XXXX, XXXX was never responsible for traffic cameras or any deliverables, and no contract exists between the cardholder and XXXX XXXX. \n\nCritically, none of the cardholders supporting documents mention XXXX XXXX, XXXX. If XXXX XXXX had conducted proper due diligence, they would have seen that XXXX XXXX was not named on any document and had no contractual obligation. Yet XXXX ruled against me without any meaningful opportunity to defend myself based on a third-party arrangement involving another company ( XXXX ), which I merely introduced the cardholder to. \n\nAfter the decision, Chase terminated my merchant account and stated I would remain liable for the chargeback and related fees. I believe Ive been financially harmed as a result of : Chases failure to notify me of the dispute in time Amexs failure to verify the cardholders claims or recognize that my company was not even mentioned in any of the documents A breakdown in basic due process that resulted in a {$25000.00} loss with no opportunity for me to submit evidence I am requesting that the CFPB investigate both Chase XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX for procedural failures and potential misrepresentation. I am seeking reversal of the chargeback or full reimbursement for the damages caused, and formal accountability for the mishandling of this dispute.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-07-28T17:05:45.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Other banking product or service","zip_code":"19146","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14930578","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","date_received":"2025-07-28T15:51:23.000Z","state":"PA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Deposits and withdrawals"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I believe Ive been financially harmed as a result of : Chases <em>failure</em> to notify me of the dispute in time Amexs <em>failure</em> to verify the cardholders claims or recognize that my company was not even mentioned in any of the documents A breakdown in basic due process that resulted in a {$25000.00} loss with no opportunity for me to submit evidence I am requesting that the CFPB <em>investigate</em> both Chase XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX for <em>procedural</em> <em>failures</em> and potential misrepresentation."]},"sort":[18.444715,"14930578"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"21460950","_score":18.001804,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"I am filing this complaint against Wells Fargo regarding XXXX unauthorized XXXX transactions of {$500.00} each ( {$1000.00} total ) that were made from my account without my knowledge or authorization, and to document a serious pattern of procedural failures by Wells Fargo in handling my case. \n\nTIMELINE OF EVENTS On XX/XX/XXXX, at approximately XXXX PM, I received an email notification showing XXXX {$500.00} XXXX transactions sent to an individual named XXXX XXXX, designated as payment for pizza. I do not know this person. I did not authorize these transactions. \n\nAt XXXX PM on XX/XX/XXXX, within approximately XXXX minutes of receiving the notification, I contacted Wells Fargo customer service to report the transactions as fraudulent. That call lasted XXXX minutes and is recorded in Wells Fargo 's system. \n\nI stated clearly that these transactions were not made by me. \n\nDespite my immediate report, Wells Fargo failed to open a fraud case under Regulation E at that time. The transactions were never properly classified as fraud. Wells Fargo also only stopped payment on one of the two unauthorized transactions during that call, requiring me to call again the following day to stop the second payment. \n\nWells Fargo subsequently required me to change my username and password and issued me a new debit card actions that acknowledge my account had been compromised yet still failed to properly classify the matter as fraud. \n\nI received a letter last week informing me that my case had been closed. When I called to inquire, a Wells Fargo representative confirmed that the case had never been correctly documented as fraud from the outset and that they did not know why. The case had to be reopened and reclassified at that time, meaning the entire prior investigation was conducted on a flawed foundation. Following the reopening, I was informed that investigators determined the transactions originated from my device. I dispute this conclusion entirely. \n\nGROUNDS FOR DISPUTE PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY. At the time the transactions were initiated, I was traveling. My computer was physically secured in my hotel room and I was not present with it. I had my phone on my person. I was unable to initiate these transactions from either device. \n\nACCOUNT COMPROMISE ALREADY ACKNOWLEDGED. Wells Fargo 's own actions requiring new login credentials and issuing a replacement debit card constitute an acknowledgment that my account was compromised. This directly contradicts their conclusion that the transactions were authorized. \n\nIMPLAUSIBLE TRANSACTION. XXXX {$500.00} XXXX payments to an unknown individual for pizza are not transactions I would ever make, and they should have been an immediate red flag. \n\nPATTERN OF PROCEDURAL FAILURES. Wells Fargo failed to : ( a ) open a fraud case when I first reported it on XX/XX/XXXX ; ( b ) stop both unauthorized payments during my initial call, requiring a second call the following day ; ( c ) properly document my report; and ( d ) conduct a valid investigation, given that the case was never correctly classified to begin with. These failures directly harmed me and may have compromised Wells Fargo 's ability to recover the funds. \n\nREGULATION XXXX PROTECTIONS. Under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E, I am entitled to protection against unauthorized electronic fund transfers. I reported this fraud immediately and in good faith. The burden is on Wells Fargo to demonstrate that I authorized these transactions not merely that they technically originated from a device associated with my account. Unauthorized access to a device does not constitute authorization by the account holder. \n\nSUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION AVAILABLE Recorded customer service call from XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX PM ( XXXX minutes ) Wells Fargo 's own records Email notification received at XXXX PM on XX/XX/XXXX showing the unauthorized transactions Hotel records confirming my travel in XXXX and the secured computer at the time of the transactions Phone location data confirming my whereabouts Wells Fargo 's fraud investigation report ( currently in transit to me ) I would also like the CFPB to understand the personal impact of this situation. My husband and I are XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX. My husband recently lost his job and we live on Social Security and a pension. The loss of {$1000.00} represents an extreme financial hardship for us. Wells Fargo 's failure to handle this case properly from the start has compounded that hardship significantly.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-04-21T22:20:34.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"19145","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"21460950","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2026-04-21T22:08:09.000Z","state":"PA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Problem making or receiving payments"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Wells Fargo 's own actions requiring new login credentials and <em>issuing</em> a replacement <em>debit</em> <em>card</em> constitute an acknowledgment that my account was compromised. This directly contradicts their conclusion that the transactions were authorized. \n\nIMPLAUSIBLE TRANSACTION. XXXX {$500.00} XXXX payments to an unknown individual for pizza are not transactions I would ever make, and they should have been an immediate red flag. \n\nPATTERN OF <em>PROCEDURAL</em> <em>FAILURES</em>."]},"sort":[18.001804,"21460950"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17200856","_score":17.872328,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"NOTE TO REVIEWER : The selection \" Money was taken from your account on the wrong day and/or for the wrong amount '' was chosen as the closest available option to categorize a formal appeal against the denial of a debit card chargeback. The core issue is a failed Regulation E dispute ( Visa Reason Code 13.3 ) investigation. \n\nThis complaint is a formal appeal against Chimes denial of my XXXX chargeback for a series of XXXX charges totaling {$450.00} for the continuous lodging period from XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/year>. \n\nThe XXXX hosts unresponsiveness and booking mismanagement led to an incident on XX/XX/year>. The host committed an unlawful, abusive act by entering my private room without permission, using intimidation and aggressive behavior, and throwing my property into a public hallway to humiliate and expel me. His partner arrived apologetically and instructed him to leave. While the host later returned and acknowledged his error, no written apology, guarantee of safety, remedy, or compensatory measure was provided, and the environment remained compromised. \n\nThis illegal self-help removal attempt created an unsafe and hostile environment, and caused me significant distress and inconvenience, constituting a Defective Service XXXX XXXX Reason Code XXXX. I was forced to remain on the premises as XXXX could not find a suitable lodging replacement and I couldn't discontinue my trip. I suspect they are suggesting this demonstrates satisfaction with the service, but this was a logistical challenge not an indication that I felt at ease with the lack of resolution. \n\nI filed and reopened a dispute ( Claim ID : XXXX ). Chime denied my claim twice and failed to provide a substantive explanation or justification for its decision, which is a procedural failure under consumer protection laws. This suggests the bank accepted the merchant 's fraudulent defense, ignoring the clear evidence of the host 's illegal act, intimidation, poor customer service, and violation of XXXX policy.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-12T11:45:29.000Z","issue":"Problem with a lender or other company charging your account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"11412","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17200856","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Chime Financial Inc","date_received":"2025-11-12T10:23:43.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Money was taken from your account on the wrong day or for the wrong amount"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["NOTE TO REVIEWER : The selection \" Money was taken from your account on the wrong day and/or for the wrong amount '' was chosen as the closest available option to categorize a formal appeal against the denial of a <em>debit</em> <em>card</em> chargeback. The core <em>issue</em> is a failed Regulation E dispute ( Visa Reason Code 13.3 ) <em>investigation</em>."]},"sort":[17.872328,"17200856"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"21110409","_score":16.664343,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"I am submitting this complaint regarding XXXX handling of a {$5000.00} charge on my account and its subsequent collection of {$4900.00} while the charge was under active dispute, in violation of the Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ), 15 U.S.C. 1666. \n\nOn XX/XX/2026, I was induced into what was represented as a {$10.00} charitable donation by individuals in XXXX. During the transaction, my device was briefly handled by third parties, and a {$5000.00} charge was processed without my knowledge or authorization. A verification email was accepted during that time without my control of the device. Upon regaining control, I contacted XXXX within approximately ten minuteswhile the charge was still pendingto report that the amount was not authorized. \n\nI immediately took protective actions, including contacting XXXX, reporting the incident to law enforcement, closing my XXXX account, contacting my other financial institutions, and freezing my credit reports. Despite my immediate notice, XXXX allowed the transaction to proceed. \n\nXXXX denied my initial fraud claim without providing any substantive explanation, relying solely on the assertion that I had furnished my card. On XX/XX/2026, I submitted a formal written billing dispute under TILA, clearly identifying the charge and explaining that the {$5000.00} amount did not reflect what I authorized. XXXX responded on XX/XX/2026 with a conclusory statement that it was unable to change the outcome and that the transaction was valid, without providing documentation, evidence, or a description of any reasonable investigation. \n\nDespite the pending dispute and its failure to comply with TILAs procedural requirements, XXXX proceeded to collect {$4900.00} from my account on XX/XX/2026 ( reflecting the {$5000.00} charge less a prior {$51.00} payment ). This collection occurred without first conducting a reasonable investigation or providing a substantive written explanation, as required by law. Under 15 U.S.C. 1666 ( a ), a creditor may not take any action to collect a disputed amount until these obligations are satisfied. \n\nAdditionally, this transfer was executed through an automatic payment mechanism, but any prior authorization for such transfers was effectively revoked upon submission of my billing dispute. The debit therefore constitutes an unauthorized transfer of funds under 15 U.S.C. 1693a ( 12 ), as it was initiated without actual authority and after explicit notice of non-authorization. \n\nXXXX has failed to : Conduct a reasonable investigation Provide a substantive, evidence-based explanation of its determination Refrain from collecting the disputed amount during the investigation All supporting documentation, including my billing dispute, demand letter, transaction records, communications with XXXX, and evidence of immediate reporting and law enforcement involvement, are attached. \n\nI am currently represented by counsel and issued a formal demand letter to XXXX on XX/XX/2026, outlining these violations and requesting resolution. The demand letter is attached. \n\nI am requesting that the CFPB investigate XXXX noncompliance with TILA, require correction of the billing error, and ensure reimbursement of the improperly collected {$4900.00}, along with any associated interest or charges.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-04-09T22:48:43.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"60614","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"21110409","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","date_received":"2026-04-09T22:32:33.000Z","state":"IL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["XXXX responded on XX/XX/2026 with a conclusory statement that it was unable to change the outcome and that the transaction was valid, <em>without</em> providing documentation, evidence, or a description of any reasonable <em>investigation</em>. \n\nDespite the pending dispute and its <em>failure</em> to comply with TILAs <em>procedural</em> requirements, XXXX proceeded to collect {$4900.00} from my account on XX/XX/2026 ( reflecting the {$5000.00} charge less a prior {$51.00} payment )."],"product":["Credit <em>card</em>"],"sub_product":["General-purpose credit <em>card</em> or charge <em>card</em>"],"sub_issue":["Credit <em>card</em> company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"]},"sort":[16.664343,"21110409"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"19265420","_score":16.53295,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"CFPB COMPLAINT UNAUTHORIZED TRANSACTIONS, DISPUTE FAILURES, AND PROCEDURAL ERRORS Consumer : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : Credit Karma Money ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ) Product : Debit Card / Checking Account Total Disputed Amount : {$3400.00} ( {$350.00}, {$1800.00}, {$1300.00} pending ) QUICK KEY FACTS FOR CFPB REVIEWERS Disputes Dispute 1 {$350.00} Prudent Owl Unauthorized ; Denied {$350.00} Dispute XXXX {$1800.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Unauthorized ; Partial credit {$560.00}, Denied {$450.00}, {$800.00} unaccounted Dispute 3 {$1300.00} pending Forge BT Unauthorized ; Pending full {$1300.00}; same merchant as approved transaction in Dispute 2 Key Facts IRS refund advance deposit ( {$4000.00} ) already received.\n\nRemaining federal IRS refund portion is scheduled to be deposited to this account.\n\nLouisiana state refund is scheduled to be deposited to this account.\n\n42 unauthorized transactions occurred within 24 hours of the IRS refund advance deposit.\n\nUnauthorized charges reported immediately while at school/work, including {$1300.00} pending transactions. \n\nXXXX XXXX failed to stop pending transactions, despite prior notice they were unauthorized. \n\nPartial credits inconsistent : XXXX XXXX approved {$560.00}, XXXX XXXX denied {$450.00} ; all from same XXXX XXXX platform. \n\nRisk-based account closure conflicts with final credit issuance of {$560.00} ; card replacement promised while account is being closed. \n\nMultiple representatives with limited English proficiency, creating barriers to resolution.\n\nEvidence available : phone recordings, chat logs, screenshots, work logs, location verification.\n\nRequested Actions Reverse and credit full {$3400.00}.\n\nProvide written explanation of dispute handling and denials.\n\nConfirm Regulation E compliance, including provisional credit.\n\nAddress failure to stop pending {$1300.00} transactions. \n\nEnsure all unauthorized transactions ( XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX ) are credited. \nProvide clarity on handling of incoming IRS refunds ( remaining federal and Louisiana state ), account closure, and card replacement.\n\nLegal Note Failure to comply with Regulation E would require full remediation, investigation documentation, and correction of procedural failures. Rights to further regulatory or legal recourse are reserved. \n\nDETAILED COMPLAINT Summary Unauthorized transactions posted within 24 hours of IRS refund advance deposit of {$4000.00} ( XX/XX/XXXX ). \n\nRemaining federal IRS refund portion and Louisiana state refund set to be deposited to this account. \n\nReported all unauthorized charges, including {$1300.00} pending, within 24 hours under Regulation E. \n\nXXXX XXXX failed to stop pending transactions, despite assurances they would fall off. \n\nNo verification, alerts, or fraud detection applied. \n\nAvailable balance {$93.00}, with {$1.00} transfer fee deducted during transfer to main bank account. \n\nXXXX XXXX has not appropriately credited my account, nor ensured Regulation E compliance. \n\nCard replacement was promised while the account is scheduled to close, creating discrepancies and risk to incoming IRS and state refunds. \n\n\nBackground Long-time Credit Karma customer, over {$40000.00} historically deposited. \n\nOnly prior dispute : {$32.00} on XX/XX/XXXX. \nUnauthorized activity occurred immediately after IRS refund deposit. \n\nDispute Summary with Specific Amounts Dispute 1 {$350.00} Prudent Owl Unauthorized ; Denied {$350.00} Dispute 2 {$1800.00} XXXX XXXX/ Prudent Owl / FBO Starfish Unauthorized ; Partial credit {$560.00} ( XXXX XXXX ), Denied {$450.00} ( Prudent Owl ), {$800.00} unaccounted ( XXXX XXXX + Prudent Owl ) Dispute 3 {$1300.00} pending Forge BT Unauthorized ; Pending full {$1300.00}, same merchant as approved transaction in Dispute 2 Discovery of Fraud and Immediate Action Unauthorized activity discovered while attempting phone bill payment.\n\nCalled Credit Karma while at school/work to report : {$1300.00} pending transactions Other unauthorized posted transactions ( {$350.00} and {$1800.00} ) Informed that {$1300.00} would fall off, but it posted anyway.\n\nReported all unauthorized charges in Disputes 1 and 2.\n\nMishandling of Pending and Posted Transactions Failed to act on posted and pending unauthorized transactions.\n\nNo fraud alerts or temporary card restrictions applied.\n\n42 abnormal transactions posted within 24 hours without detection. \n\nAll disputed transactions ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) came from the same XXXX ad/game download, indicating single point of compromise. \n\nIncoming IRS refund ( remaining portion ) and Louisiana state refund still scheduled for deposit, putting funds at risk due to account closure. \n\n\nDispute Process Failures Conflicting statements : provisional credits approved, denied, promised post-account closure ( nonexistent XX/XX/XXXX cited ). \n\nRisk-based account closure conflicts with final credit ( {$560.00} ) issuance. \n\nCard replacement promised while account scheduled to close in 710 business days from XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nWritten confirmation/documentation refused. \nPartial credits inconsistent : XXXX XXXX approved {$560.00}, XXXX XXXX denied {$450.00} ; same XXXX game platform. \n\nImproper Denial and Missing Funds Dispute 1 {$350.00} Prudent Owl Denied {$350.00} Dispute 2 {$1800.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX credit {$560.00} ( XXXX XXXX ), Denied {$450.00} ( Prudent Owl ), {$800.00} unaccounted ( XXXX XXXX + Prudent Owl ) Dispute 3 {$1300.00} pending XXXX XXXX Pending {$1300.00}, same merchant as approved transactions in Dispute 2 Demonstrates : Contradictory treatment of same XXXX game across merchants Denial of clearly unauthorized funds, portions unaccounted Failure to stop pending transactions and failure to provisionally credit or reverse posted unauthorized transactions Failure to Provide Fraud Detection / Consumer Protection No alerts or detection for abnormal volume ( 42 transactions ).\n\nPending charges posted despite notification, violating Regulation E.\n\nBarriers to Resolution Multiple customer service/dispute reps had limited English proficiency, impeding timely dispute resolution.\n\nDelays in corrective action occurred.\n\nCompromised Accounts / Identity Exposure Hacking / dark web exposure over 23 years.\n\nLockouts of financial accounts, email, social media ; password changes ; credential compromise. \n\nLegitimate ACH/debit withdrawal attempted, verified with XXXX XXXX, denied ; funds rerouted to XXXX. Shortly after, Prudent Owl unauthorized transactions occurred. \n\nAll disputed transactions ( XXXX XXXX, Prudent Owl, XXXX XXXX ) came from same XXXX game platform, indicating third-party compromise. \n\nAccount Information Errors Despite updating my account address, dispute decision correspondence and paperwork continue to show my old address, demonstrating a failure to maintain accurate account records and procedural oversight.\n\nRequested Resolution Reverse and credit full {$3400.00}.\n\nProvide explanation of dispute handling and denials.\n\nConfirm Regulation E compliance, including provisional credit.\n\nAddress failure to stop pending {$1300.00} transactions. \n\nEnsure all unauthorized transactions credited ( XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX ). \n\nProvide clarity on handling of incoming IRS refunds ( remaining federal portion and Louisiana XXXX ), account closure, and card replacement. \n\nDocumentation available : phone recordings, chat logs, screenshots, work logs, location verification. \n\nLegal / Regulatory Context Regulation E ( 12 C.F.R. 1005.6 ) : Unauthorized electronic fund transfers reported within 24 hours limit liability to {$50.00}.\n\nBanks must provisionally credit accounts promptly and stop unauthorized pending transactions once notified. \n\nXXXX XXXX failed to comply. \n\nProfessional/ Legal Note If this were a client account, failure to comply with Regulation E would require full remediation, investigation documentation, and correction of procedural failures. Rights to pursue further regulatory or legal recourse are reserved.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-02-05T07:30:36.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"39466","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"19265420","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Credit Karma, LLC","date_received":"2026-02-05T07:11:49.000Z","state":"MS","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Problem using a debit or ATM card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Professional/ Legal Note If this were a client account, <em>failure</em> to comply with Regulation E would require full remediation, <em>investigation</em> documentation, and correction of <em>procedural</em> <em>failures</em>. Rights to pursue further regulatory or legal recourse are reserved."],"sub_issue":["Problem using a <em>debit</em> or ATM <em>card</em>"]},"sort":[16.53295,"19265420"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"15164572","_score":16.502821,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"To resolve this matter lawfully, equitably, and in accordance with federal consumer protection and XXXX statutes, I am requesting the following corrective actions and financial remedies from BMO Harris Bank : Immediate Corrective Actions Full reinstatement of account access, including debit card functionality and XXXX capabilities, without delay or procedural obstruction. \nWritten confirmation that the XX/XX/XXXX fraud designation was erroneous and has been permanently removed from my account history. \nWaiver of all late fees, overdraft charges, and penalties incurred between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, including rent, utilities, pharmacy surcharges, and business transaction failures. \nXXXX escalation protocol for future account issues, including direct access to a designated XXXX support liaison trained in psychiatric and executive-function accommodations. \n\nVerified Financial Compensation I am demanding {$48000.00} in verified restitution, supported by forensic accounting, medical documentation, and statutory damages schedules. This amount includes : Category Amount Basis Compensatory Damages {$16000.00} Missed rent, medication costs, lost consulting income, emotional harm Statutory Damages {$22000.00} Violations of ADA, EFTA, Texas DTPA, TILA, FCRA, FHA Punitive Damages {$15000.00} Pattern of ADA neglect, emotional exploitation, and procedural abuse Total Verified Demand {$48000.00} See attached Expert Report and Affidavit of Harm This figure is conservative and excludes additional damages currently under review in federal court filings, including reputational harm, business interruption, and ADA retaliation. \n\nInstitutional Accountability Termination and disciplinary review of the representative XXXX who closed my account in direct violation of protocol and ADA obligations. \nInternal audit of BMOs fraud-handling procedures, with public-facing transparency on how disability-related inquiries are managed and escalated. \nFormal apology and acknowledgment of harm, to be issued in writing and retained in my account file for future regulatory review. \n\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX may choose to : Issue direct payment via certified check or wire transfer to my account on file. \nFile an internal insurance claim under its Small Business Loan Insurance Plan ( Group Policy No. XXXX ), which covers operational disruption up to {$250000.00}. \n\n\nEnforcement and Escalation Failure to resolve this matter will result in : Continued litigation in federal court Publication of verified press releases and affidavits Escalation to the CFPB, BBB, and state banking commissions Subpoena of internal call logs, fraud flags, and training records I am prepared to furnish all supporting documentation, including call logs, medical letters, forensic damage schedules, and XXXX certifications. This is not a theoretical disputeit is a documented injury with statutory standing and public interest implications.\n\nXXXX  Harm and Malicious Intent In addition to the damages listed above, the emotional, medical, and procedural impact of this account closure was profound and measurable. I am a XXXX XXXX with a federally documented XXXX XXXX, a support animal, and prescribed executive-function accommodations. These facts were disclosed to BMO in writing and on multiple phone calls, including conversations with XXXX, the representative who unilaterally closed my account and flagged my business activity as fraud. \n\nXXXX actions were neither accidental nor the result of a systemic flawthey were targeted, dismissive, and executed without evidence or escalation. I requested that my card not be blocked, explained my XXXX, and cited my prescription dependency on uninterrupted access to funds. My account was closed anyway. The decision happened with full awareness of my medical and XXXX context, including prior disputes, support documentation, and forensic timestamps. The XXXX violation was not abstractit was direct, injurious, and malicious. \n\nDuring this freeze, I experienced : XXXX consecutive days without financial access Inability to refill XXXX medications including Levetiracetam and antidepressants Cancellation of time-sensitive XXXX trades and client payment collections Acute XXXX flare-ups, XXXX, and a psychological crisis confirmed by my psychiatrist These injuries triggered medical evaluations, affidavits, and clinical documentation, all submitted to BMO. No corrective action was taken. This resulted in reputational damage, revenue loss, and physical deteriorationall preventable, all documented, all unlawful. \n\nXXXX Grounds Supporting XXXX XXXX 42 U.S.C. 12132 and 12205 ( ADA Title II/III ) Prohibits exclusion from public-facing services on the basis of XXXX. \n15 U.S.C. 1693f and 1693m ( EFTA ) Mandates prompt investigation, provisional credit, and written resolution of transaction errors.\n\nTex. Bus. & Com. Code 17.46 ( b ) and 17.50 ( b ) ( 1 ) Prohibits misleading business practices that cause mental anguish or economic harm.\n\nTennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 ( 2004 ) Confirms disabled individuals right to access public services without obstruction.\n\nOlmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 ( 1999 ) Establishes denial of access as a form of actionable discrimination.\n\nStanley v. City of Sanford, 2007 WL 2827748 XXXX  protects cognitive limitations including executive-function impairments. \n\n\nThis harm was not speculativeit was lived, recorded, and now legally framed. I am not asking for empathyI am demanding justice.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-08-08T21:37:05.000Z","issue":"Closing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"77049","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"15164572","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BMO BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2025-08-08T20:32:02.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Company closed your account"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["To resolve this matter lawfully, equitably, and in accordance with federal consumer protection and XXXX statutes, I am requesting the following corrective actions and financial remedies from BMO Harris Bank : Immediate Corrective Actions Full reinstatement of account access, including <em>debit</em> <em>card</em> functionality and XXXX capabilities, <em>without</em> delay or <em>procedural</em> obstruction."]},"sort":[16.502821,"15164572"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"19172943","_score":15.875966,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"Subject : Formal Complaint Mishandled Dispute, Refusal to Provide Records, and Refusal to Delete Inaccurate Record Dear Sir or Madam, I am submitting this formal complaint regarding the actions of JPMorgan Chase Bank and XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) in relation to XXXX high-value disputed transactions belonging to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX \n\nFrom XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX, Chase failed to properly handle the disputes that were formally filed. Chase requested supporting documentation with a deadline of XX/XX/XXXX. All requested documents were fully submitted on XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX A.M. via the Chase mobile application and fax, more than XXXX hours before the banks official business hours. \n\nDespite this, on XX/XX/XXXX, Chase issued a premature debit decision before reviewing the documents and before the banks own deadline expired. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, Chase debited {$320000.00}, causing the account to enter a negative balance. Later, official independent correspondence from XXXX confirmed that Chase only submitted XXXX disputes to the card network and never submitted the remaining XXXX disputes. This proves that Chases investigation was incomplete and procedurally defective. \n\nChase then closed the case and reported a negative record to XXXX XXXX XXXX based on incomplete and misleading information. \n\nDuring this entire period, I repeatedly and formally requested in writing : Merchant letters Internal investigation records Correspondence between Chase and XXXX Written responses instead of phone calls Permanent deletion of the inaccurate XXXX record Chase employees consistently refused to provide written responses and avoided documentation. Some employee email addresses later returned User Unknown when I attempted to follow up. \n\nAdditionally, representatives from Chases XXXX XXXX repeatedly called me and instructed me not to record the calls, stating that I did not have the right to do so. I informed them that under XXXX XXXX one-party consent law, I have the legal right to record such conversations. \n\nAlmost all calls are preserved upon request, and these recordings clearly demonstrate the banks failure to properly manage the dispute and its refusal to correct and delete the inaccurate record. \n\nMore seriously, Chase closed my accounts while the dispute was still active and unresolved. \n\nFrom XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX, Chase continuously delayed resolution, stating they need more time, without providing any meaningful response, investigation outcome, or the requested documentation. \n\nI formally requested written clarification, investigation records, copies of internal findings, and permanent deletion of any negative internal or external records related to this matter. Chase did not provide the requested information. \n\nI have given Chase more than sufficient time and opportunity to resolve this matter in good faith. \n\nThe funds involved are lawful XXXX capital for my XXXX company, and Chases handling of this matter caused severe financial and operational harm. \n\nI respectfully request regulatory intervention to require Chase to : Provide the requested documentation and investigation records Correct and permanently delete any improper records, both internally and at XXXX Formally close this matter in accordance with federal banking compliance standards Sincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2026-02-02T06:07:39.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"11209","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"19172943","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","date_received":"2026-02-02T05:33:08.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Problem using a debit or ATM card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Despite this, on XX/XX/XXXX, Chase <em>issued</em> a premature <em>debit</em> decision before reviewing the documents and before the banks own deadline expired. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, Chase <em>debited</em> {$320000.00}, causing the account to enter a negative balance. Later, official independent correspondence from XXXX confirmed that Chase only submitted XXXX disputes to the <em>card</em> network and never submitted the remaining XXXX disputes. This proves that Chases <em>investigation</em> was incomplete and <em>procedurally</em> defective."],"sub_issue":["Problem using a <em>debit</em> or ATM <em>card</em>"]},"sort":[15.875966,"19172943"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"21886540","_score":15.644605,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"This complaint concerns Robinhood Money LLC 's handling of disputed unauthorized debit card transactions, including a documented violation of the provisional credit requirement under 12 C.F.R. 1005.11 ( c ).\n\nProcedural violation missing provisional credit : On XX/XX/year>, I submitted a written rebuttal of denial decisions issued XX/XX/year> on five disputed transactions totaling {$2400.00}. On XX/XX/year>, Robinhood Support confirmed in writing that \" if it isn't resolved within 10 business days, you will receive a provisional credit in the amount of your dispute. '' The 10-business-day deadline expired XX/XX/year>. No provisional credit has been issued. \n\nOn XX/XX/year>, after calling Robinhood support, I received a written email from Robinhood Support agent Mark ( Case ID XXXX ) confirming the violation. XXXX wrote : \" Because their review isn't complete yet even though it is beyond the 10 days time frame, they haven't issued a provisional credit at this time. '' This is a written admission that Robinhood is past the 10-business-day deadline and has not issued the credit. XXXX also stated provisional credit is conditioned on the disputes team 's review outcome which contradicts 1005.11 ( c ), under which provisional credit is required during an extended investigation, not as a discretionary outcome of one. \n\nOn XX/XX/year>, Robinhood Banking sent five \" Debit Card dispute received '' emails confirming receipt of new dispute filings for each of the four disputed transactions, treating my XX/XX/year> rebuttal as new dispute notices under their system. The 10-business-day investigation period under 12 C.F.R. 1005.11 ( c ) therefore ran from XX/XX/year> and expired Monday, XX/XX/year>. No provisional credit has been issued. \n\nUnderlying disputes denial without addressing merits : The five disputed transactions are : XXXX ( {$1100.00}, XX/XX/year> ), XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ( {$400.00} and {$500.00}, both XX/XX/year> ), and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( {$210.00} charged twice, XX/XX/year> ). Three were processed via XXXX XXXX, excluding XXXX XXXX  which were debit card fraud.\n\nRobinhood denied each dispute on the basis that the transactions were \" authenticated with two factor authentication, App activity. '' This denial reason fails to address whether goods or services were delivered to me as cardholder, which is the controlling question under XXXX chargeback rules and Regulation E. Specifically : The XXXX merchant can not prove delivery. The seller named a recipient XXXX account that returns \" user not found '' on XXXXXXXX XXXX public lookup. The seller 's tracking reference does not resolve. The seller provided two contradicting delivery timestamps. The merchant phone number on the transaction detail does not belong to the seller the actual number holder confirmed in writing that charges are appearing on multiple cardholders ' statements for transactions they did not process. The seller also stated in writing that the purchase \" may have been someone else with access to your device. '' I have no XXXX account. \n\nThe XXXX XXXX merchant has produced no evidence of any goods or services delivered to me.\n\nRobinhood 's own fraud detection system flagged the XXXX XXXX merchant on the same card on XX/XX/year>, sending SMS alerts marked \" Fraud suspected. '' Robinhood can not deny charges to a merchant that its own system identified as fraudulent on the same card on the same day. It was also processed in a fast, fraudulent nature of 2 charges being XXXX both successful and then the attempt multiple times of smaller denominations. \n\nXXXX XXXX authentication concern : On XX/XX/year>, Robinhood Support agent XXXX stated in writing that Robinhood \" can not verify how many mobile wallets are connected to your Robinhood Debit Card at this time. '' Three of the five disputed transactions were processed via XXXX XXXX. Robinhood 's denial rationale \" authenticated with two factor authentication, App activity '' depends on identifying the authenticating device. Robinhood has acknowledged in writing it can not verify which devices hold provisioned tokens for the card. Authentication by a device Robinhood can not identify does not satisfy the burden of proving authorization affirmatively under 12 C.F.R. 1005.6.\n\nWhat I am requesting : What I am requesting : A proper re-investigation that resolves the disputes in my favor and refunds the full disputed amount of {$2400.00}. The merchants involved can not meet the compelling evidence standard required under XXXX chargeback rules to prove the transactions were authorized cardholder purchases with goods or services delivered to me, and Robinhood 's prior denial rationale citing only authentication records does not satisfy its burden of proving authorization affirmatively under 12 C.F.R. 1005.6.\n\nImmediate issuance of provisional credit in the amount of the disputed transactions during any continued investigation, as required under 12 C.F.R. 1005.11 ( c ). This obligation is not discretionary and Robinhood 's own employee has confirmed in writing that the deadline for this credit has passed.\n\nEnforcement action by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau addressing\nRobinhood Money LLC 's and XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX failure to comply with Regulation E in this case. Robinhood has, in writing through its own employee, conditioned a mandatory provisional credit on the discretionary outcome of an investigation, which is a substantive misstatement of 1005.11 ( c ). I am asking that the CFPB review this practice to determine whether it is being applied to other cardholders in similar dispute situations.\n\nBanking services on this account are provided by XXXX XXXX XXXX. I am requesting that XXXX XXXX XXXX  also be notified of this complaint as the chartered bank of record. \n\nCase IDs referenced : XXXX ( original dispute appeal ), XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX escalation ). More than willing to comply with any additional evidence requests.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-05-05T12:16:28.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"60544","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"21886540","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"ROBINHOOD MARKETS INC.","date_received":"2026-05-05T11:30:13.000Z","state":"IL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Problem using a debit or ATM card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This complaint concerns Robinhood Money LLC 's handling of disputed unauthorized <em>debit</em> <em>card</em> transactions, including a documented violation of the provisional credit requirement under 12 C.F.R. 1005.11 ( c ).\n\n<em>Procedural</em> violation missing provisional credit : On XX/XX/year>, I submitted a written rebuttal of denial decisions <em>issued</em> XX/XX/year> on five disputed transactions totaling {$2400.00}."],"sub_issue":["Problem using a <em>debit</em> or ATM <em>card</em>"]},"sort":[15.644605,"21886540"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"22234689","_score":14.243984,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"CFPB COMPLAINT Golden 1 Credit Union Potential Violations of Regulation E, EFTA, UDAAP, False Fraud Claims, and Improper Account Restriction Practices To the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, I am filing a complaint against Golden 1 Credit Union for actions that appear to violate multiple federal consumerprotection laws, including Regulation E ( 12 CFR 1005 ), the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ), and UDAAP prohibitions under the DoddFrank Act. Golden 1 improperly restricted my account, denied me access to my own funds, made false statements about fraud, failed to investigate, and allowed an employee ( XXXX, Account Review Department ) to obstruct and delay resolution. \nThese actions caused financial harm, emotional distress, and a complete loss of access to funds that were legally mine.\n\n1. Improper Restriction of My Entire Account ( Potential Regulation E & EFTA Violations ) Another Golden 1 member transferred {$2400.00} into my account. Instead of placing a standard hold on the transferred amount, Golden 1 restricted my entire account, blocking access to : My preexisting funds My debit card Online banking All available balances I received no advance notice, no written notice, and no explanation until after the restriction was already in place.\n\nThis appears inconsistent with 12 CFR 1005.6 and 1005.11, which govern access to funds, error resolution, and consumer notification.\n\n2. Senders Account Restricted Without Cause ( Potential UDAAP Violation ) Golden 1 also restricted the senders account, even though : The sender willingly initiated the transfer There was no dispute The sender attempted to verify the transaction Golden 1 falsely claimed they attempted to contact him The sender received no call, voicemail, or missed call The sender was so frustrated that he closed his Golden 1 account in person.\n\nRestricting a consumers account without cause, without notice, and without communication may constitute an unfair and abusive practice under UDAAP.\n\n3. False Fraud Statements Without Investigation ( Deceptive Practice Under UDAAP ) After delaying the situation for hours, the employee Dan finally answered the senders call and stated that members accounts have been wiped out by fraud.\n\nThis statement is : False Unverified Not supported by any investigation Not based on any evidence Contradicted by the fact that neither account was reviewed or contacted Golden 1 made a fraud claim without conducting ANY investigation, despite : Both members calling in Both members attempting to verify the transfer The sender physically going to the branch No one from Golden 1 contacting either party Making false or unverified fraud claims is a deceptive act under UDAAP because it misrepresents the nature of the restriction and misleads consumers about the status of their accounts.\n\nIt is also an abusive act, because Golden 1 used its position of power to intimidate and mislead members rather than investigate.\n\n4. Failure to Investigate or Verify the Transfer ( Regulation E Violation ) Under Regulation E, financial institutions must : Conduct a reasonable investigation Contact involved parties Document findings Provide timely resolution Golden 1 did none of these.\n\nBoth members were actively calling in to verify the transfer, yet Golden 1 : Did not contact either party Did not review the transaction Did not investigate Did not document anything Did not resolve the issue Instead, Golden 1 restricted both accounts and made false statements about fraud.\n\nThis is a clear procedural failure.\n\n5. Failure to Provide Required Adverse Action Notices Golden 1 restricted my account without : Written notice Explanation of the reason Explanation of my rights Timeline for resolution Any documentation whatsoever Financial institutions are required to provide adverse action notices when restricting access to a consumers account. Golden 1 failed to do so.\n\n6. Denial of Access to Lawful Funds ( Unfair Practice Under UDAAP ) Golden 1 denied me access to all of my funds, including money that had nothing to do with the transfer. This caused : Inability to pay bills Inability to access my own money Financial hardship Emotional distress Denying a consumer access to their own funds without justification is an unfair practice under UDAAP because : It causes substantial injury The injury is not reasonably avoidable There is no countervailing benefit to consumers Golden 1s actions meet all three criteria.\n\n7. Staff Misconduct and Obstruction ( Abusive Practice Under UDAAP ) The employee XXXX in the Account Review Department : Was rude and dismissive Refused to communicate with branch staff Ignored multiple attempts to contact him Delayed the process for hours Provided no explanation or assistance Made false statements about fraud Misrepresented attempts to contact the sender This behavior is abusive, because Golden 1 used its position of power to : Obstruct access to funds Withhold information Delay resolution Create unnecessary hardship This conduct is inconsistent with federal standards for fair treatment of consumers.\n\n8. Harm Suffered Golden 1s actions caused : Complete loss of access to my own funds Inability to meet financial obligations Emotional distress Wasted time for both me and the sender The sender closing his Golden 1 account Loss of trust in the institution These harms were directly caused by Golden 1s improper actions.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-05-15T07:39:14.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"92311","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"22234689","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"GOLDEN 1 CREDIT UNION, THE","date_received":"2026-05-15T06:58:20.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Deposits and withdrawals"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Both members were actively calling in to verify the transfer, yet Golden 1 : Did not contact either party Did not review the transaction Did not <em>investigate</em> Did not document anything Did not resolve the <em>issue</em> Instead, Golden 1 restricted both accounts and made false statements about fraud.\n\nThis is a clear <em>procedural</em> <em>failure</em>.\n\n5."]},"sort":[14.243984,"22234689"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":41,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":41}]}},"product":{"doc_count":41,"product":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Checking or savings account","doc_count":28,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Checking account","doc_count":25},{"key":"Other banking product or service","doc_count":2},{"key":"Savings account","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Credit card","doc_count":9,"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":9}]}},{"key":"Prepaid card","doc_count":2,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"General-purpose prepaid card","doc_count":1},{"key":"Government benefit card","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Mobile or digital wallet","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Payday loan, title loan, personal loan, or advance loan","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Payday loan","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"issue":{"doc_count":41,"issue":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Managing an account","doc_count":23,"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":13},{"key":"Deposits and withdrawals","doc_count":5},{"key":"Funds not handled or disbursed as instructed","doc_count":3},{"key":"Banking errors","doc_count":1},{"key":"Problem making or receiving payments","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","doc_count":6,"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":4},{"key":"Card was charged for something you did not purchase with the card","doc_count":2}]}},{"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":2}]}},{"key":"Problem with a lender or other company charging your account","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Money was taken from your account on the wrong day or for the wrong amount","doc_count":1},{"key":"Transaction was not authorized","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a purchase or transfer","doc_count":2,"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":1},{"key":"Charged for a purchase or transfer you did not make with the card","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Closing your account","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Company closed your account","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":"Loan payment wasn't credited to your account","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Opening an account","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Account opened without my consent or knowledge","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":"Problem with rewards from credit card","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Unauthorized transactions or other transaction problem","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}}]}},"timely":{"doc_count":41,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":41}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":41,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":31},{"key":"Closed with monetary relief","doc_count":9},{"key":"Closed with non-monetary relief","doc_count":1}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":41,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":41}]}},"company":{"doc_count":41,"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":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","doc_count":5},{"key":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","doc_count":4},{"key":"SOFI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.","doc_count":3},{"key":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":2},{"key":"NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","doc_count":2},{"key":"Atlanticus Services Corporation","doc_count":1},{"key":"BMO BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"Block, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"CITIBANK, N.A.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Credit Karma, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"GOLDEN 1 CREDIT UNION, THE","doc_count":1},{"key":"KEYCORP","doc_count":1},{"key":"M&T BANK CORPORATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"MoneySpot USA LLC DBA Sunshine Loans","doc_count":1},{"key":"Paypal Holdings, Inc","doc_count":1},{"key":"ROBINHOOD MARKETS INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"SANTANDER HOLDINGS USA, INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Self Financial Inc.","doc_count":1}]}},"state":{"doc_count":41,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"CA","doc_count":6},{"key":"MD","doc_count":4},{"key":"NY","doc_count":4},{"key":"PA","doc_count":4},{"key":"FL","doc_count":3},{"key":"IL","doc_count":3},{"key":"GA","doc_count":2},{"key":"LA","doc_count":2},{"key":"RI","doc_count":2},{"key":"CT","doc_count":1},{"key":"IA","doc_count":1},{"key":"MI","doc_count":1},{"key":"MS","doc_count":1},{"key":"NV","doc_count":1},{"key":"OH","doc_count":1},{"key":"TX","doc_count":1},{"key":"UT","doc_count":1},{"key":"VA","doc_count":1},{"key":"WY","doc_count":1}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":41,"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":15},{"key":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","doc_count":3}]}},"tags":{"doc_count":41,"tags":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Servicemember","doc_count":5},{"key":"Older American","doc_count":1}]}}},"_meta":{"license":"CC0","last_updated":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","last_indexed":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","total_record_count":16441818,"is_data_stale":false,"has_data_issue":false,"break_points":{"2":[14.243984,"22234689"]}}}