{"took":120,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":33,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16749166","_score":19.527702,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"WHAT HAPPENED : BANK OF AMERICA CONTINUES TO VIOLATE MY RIGHTS UNDER THE FDCPA AND CALIFORNIA ROSENTHAL ACT BY IGNORING MY WRITTEN-ONLY COMMUNICATION REQUEST. DESPITE MULTIPLE EMAILS AND FILINGS, INCLUDING AN ACTIVE CASE REFERRED TO THE OFFICE OF THE COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY ( OCC ), THE BANKS REPRESENTATIVE, TREA SO FROM THE ENTERPRISE RESOLUTION DEPARTMENT, CONTINUES TO DIRECT ME TO CALL COLLECTIONS AS THEY continue with the late fees.\n\nTHIS IS A DIRECT VIOLATION OF MY LEGAL RIGHT TO WRITTEN COMMUNICATION ONLY. BANK OF AMERICA HAS ALSO CONTINUED TO ADD LATE FEES TO MY ACCOUNT DURING AN ACTIVE REGULATORY INVESTIGATION, WHICH SHOWS BAD FAITH AND RETALIATORY CONDUCT. I HAVE PROVIDED EVIDENCE OF THESE ACTIONS TO THE OCC AND DFPI.\n\nI AM REQUESTING THAT THE CFPB DOCUMENT THIS AS A CONTINUING VIOLATION AND ENSURE THAT BANK OF AMERICA IS HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR IGNORING FEDERAL LAW, ACTIVE COMPLAINTS, AND CONSUMER RIGHTS.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-10-22T23:00:46.000Z","issue":"Fees or interest","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"XXXXX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"16749166","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2025-10-22T20:58:46.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Problem with fees"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["BANK OF AMERICA HAS ALSO CONTINUED TO ADD LATE FEES TO MY ACCOUNT DURING AN ACTIVE REGULATORY <em>INVESTIGATION</em>, <em>WHICH</em> <em>SHOWS</em> BAD <em>FAITH</em> AND <em>RETALIATORY</em> CONDUCT. I HAVE PROVIDED EVIDENCE OF THESE ACTIONS TO THE OCC AND DFPI.\n\nI AM REQUESTING THAT THE CFPB DOCUMENT THIS AS A CONTINUING VIOLATION AND ENSURE THAT BANK OF AMERICA IS HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR IGNORING FEDERAL LAW, ACTIVE COMPLAINTS, AND CONSUMER RIGHTS."]},"sort":[19.527702,"16749166"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16068745","_score":18.645397,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"I am filing this complaint because Wells Fargo mishandled my dispute against a merchant, mischaracterized the nature of my claim, refused to properly investigate it, and then retaliated by closing my account. \n\nOn or about XX/XX/year> I filed a dispute with Wells Fargo regarding transactions with the merchant XXXX  ( XXXX XXXX ). I paid the merchant for services that were never delivered. This was a clear case of a merchant dispute for services/goods not received. \n\nWhen I contacted the merchant directly, they refused to provide me with an ACH trace number and stated it was for security reasons. This demonstrated evasiveness and bad faith on their part, and I provided this information to the bank. \n\nDespite this, Wells Fargo misclassified my claim as if I were reporting unauthorized transactions. They denied the dispute on that basis without ever addressing the actual issue that I paid for services and never received them. Wells Fargo therefore conducted no meaningful investigation into the merchants failure to provide services. \n\nI appealed the denial of my claim through Wells Fargos internal process and followed up with multiple phone calls and in-person visits to my local branch. Despite my efforts, Wells Fargo still refused to reconsider or investigate the matter correctly, and they upheld their denial. Shortly afterward, I was notified that my account would also be closed. I believe this closure was retaliatory in nature, tied directly to my attempt to exercise my rights as a consumer by filing and appealing valid disputes. \nWhy this is unlawful or improper : Under federal law, including Regulation E, banks are required to conduct a reasonable investigation when a customer files a claim of error or dispute. By mischaracterizing my dispute as unauthorized, Wells Fargo avoided investigating the true issue. \nMy appeal and repeated attempts to resolve the matter internally demonstrate that I acted in good faith and gave the bank every opportunity to correct their mistake. Their refusal to reconsider shows a pattern of mishandling. \nRegulation E also contemplates that financial institutions must handle disputes fairly and in good faith. Retaliatory account closures undermine consumer protections and discourage individuals from exercising their rights. \nAs a result, I was denied the opportunity for a fair review of my claim and deprived of the funds I rightfully should have recovered. \n\n\n\nHarm caused to me : I lost access to my Wells Fargo account and funds during this process. \nMy XXXX score has been negatively impacted ( currently XXXX ) with a notation of insufficient XXXX inquiry activity, which has made it more difficult to open new accounts. \nI am left without the services I paid for, without the benefit of a fair investigation, and with damaged banking relationships.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-09-22T14:40:37.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"33467","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"16068745","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2025-09-22T14:26:14.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Funds not handled or disbursed as instructed"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Their refusal to reconsider <em>shows</em> a pattern of mishandling. \nRegulation E also contemplates that financial institutions must handle disputes fairly and in good <em>faith</em>. <em>Retaliatory</em> account closures undermine consumer protections and discourage individuals from exercising their rights. \nAs a result, I was denied the opportunity for a fair review of my claim and deprived of the funds I rightfully should have recovered."]},"sort":[18.645397,"16068745"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"15757510","_score":17.837313,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Subject : Retaliatory Threat from Furnisher After Disputing Inaccurate Credit Reporting * * * * Company : Credit Acceptance Corporation * * * * My Account Number : XXXX * * Previous CFPB Case Number : XXXX * * To the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau , I am filing this complaint against Credit Acceptance Corporation for engaging in retaliatory and threatening conduct after I exercised my right to dispute inaccurate information on my credit report.\n\n* * Background of Original Dispute : * XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XX/XX/year>XXXX XXXX, I filed a complaint ( CFPB Case # XXXX ) disputing a XXXX late payment Credit Acceptance reported for XX/XX/year>. My dispute was based on clear evidence provided by Credit Acceptance itself, which showed that the company has an inconsistent and selective policy for reporting late payments. \nThe payment history shows that in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX I made partial payments that left past-due balances unpaid for over 30 days. On both of those occasions, Credit Acceptance * * did not * * report a 30-day delinquency to the credit bureaus. Moreover, for the payment of XX/XX/year>, there were XXXX payments made, XXXX for {$280.00} and another for {$290.00} totally {$570.00}, leaving an outstanding balance of XXXX cents. Although this is not a significant amount of money, under their strict policy that credit acceptance is holding me to, this should have triggered a 30 day past due balance and or late payment, using their own payment schedule, it is clear that they did not furnish a 30 day past due notice on my account. An identical situation in * XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX they did report a late payment. This inconsistent reporting is a violation of the FCRA 's requirement to provide complete and accurate information, as it creates a misleading picture of my payment history. \n\n* * The Retaliatory Threat : * * After receiving my detailed dispute pointing out this illegal inconsistency, a representative of Credit Acceptance by the name of XXXX contacted me. During this communication, instead of addressing the merits of my dispute, the representative * * threatened to take retaliatory action * *. \n\nI was explicitly told that if I continued to dispute the inaccurate XX/XX/year> late payment, Credit Acceptance would * * '' update '' my credit history * * to retroactively report * all * previous instances where a partial payment was made ( including the XXXX, XXXX and XX/XX/year> periods ) as XXXX late payments. \nThis is not a good-faith effort to comply with the law. This is a threat designed to intimidate me into dropping a valid dispute. The threat itself is a serious violation, and the proposed action would be illegal for several reasons : 1. * * It is Retaliatory : * * Threatening to harm my credit score because I pointed out the company 's own error is an act of bad faith and retaliation against a consumer for exercising a legal right.\n\n2. * * It is Historically Inaccurate : * * The FCRA requires that data be accurate. Reporting a account status as \" 30-days late '' for a billing cycle that passed months ago is inherently inaccurate and would mislead\nanyone reviewing my credit report.\n\n3. * * It Violates the XXXX and XXXX of the FCRA : * * The purpose of the law is to ensure fair and accurate credit reporting. Credit Acceptance 's threat turns the credit reporting system into a weapon to punish consumers who dare to question them.\n\n* * Desired Resolution : * * I want the CFPB to investigate this retaliatory conduct immediately.\n\nI demand that Credit Acceptance : 1. * * Cease * * all threats of retaliatory credit reporting.\n\n2. * * Provide written confirmation * * that they will not attempt to report historical late payments for periods that have already passed.\n\n3. * * Permanently delete * * the inaccurate XXXX late payment for XX/XX/year>, as it is inconsistent with their own reporting history and is therefore misleading.\n\n4. * * Be held accountable * * for using intimidation tactics against a consumer engaged in a lawful dispute. \n\nThis behavior is unacceptable. A data furnisher can not be allowed to threaten consumers with financial ruin for simply asking them to follow the law. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-09-05T22:24:04.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"48135","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"15757510","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CREDIT ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION","date_received":"2025-09-05T21:37:53.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Problem with personal statement of dispute"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["* * Desired Resolution : * * I want the CFPB to <em>investigate</em> this <em>retaliatory</em> conduct immediately."],"issue":["Problem with a company's <em>investigation</em> into an existing problem"]},"sort":[17.837313,"15757510"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18083587","_score":16.9755,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"I am refiling this complaint because Wells Fargo mishandled my XXXX XXXX dispute, mischaracterized the claim, failed to comply with Regulation E, denied my appeal on the wrong basis, closed my account in retaliation, and caused XXXX  harm. Their conduct violates multiple federal consumer-protection laws. I request CFPB escalation and supervisory review. \n\n\n\n1. Wells Fargo Mischaracterized My Dispute ( Reg E Violation ) Wells Fargo repeatedly classified my claim as fraud, even though I never alleged fraud or unauthorized use. \nMy dispute was a merchant/services-not-received claim for services I paid for but never received from XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ). \n\nMischaracterizing the dispute category allowed Wells Fargo to avoid a proper investigation. \nThis violates 12 CFR 1005.11, which requires banks to investigate based on the error alleged. \n\nWells Fargo ignored the actual issue I reported. \n\n\n\n2. Investigation Was Not Reasonable or Compliant A lawful Regulation E investigation must : Address the specific error reported Review consumer-provided evidence Contact or attempt to contact the merchant when appropriate Document findings tied to the actual dispute category Wells Fargo did none of these. \n\nThey : Never investigated the merchants non-delivery of services Never addressed the merchants refusal to provide an ACH trace Ignored all documents I submitted Investigated a different issue than the one I raised This is not a reasonable or good-faith investigation under 12 CFR 1005.11.\n\n3. Appeal Was Denied on the Wrong Legal Basis I submitted new evidence during my appeal showing the merchant acted in bad faith. \n\nWells Fargo did not review this evidence. \nThey simply repeated their original denial based on the wrong dispute type. \n\nDenying an appeal on an incorrect legal basis is : Arbitrary Capricious In violation of the banks duty of fair dealing Legally insufficient under Regulation Es error-resolution requirements 4. Account Closure Appears Retaliatory ( UDAAP Concern ) Shortly after filing and appealing my dispute, Wells Fargo closed my account. \nTheir explanation a vague risk review is not a substantive or documented justification. \n\nClosing a customers account immediately after exercising dispute rights raises concerns under : Regulation E commentary on retaliation, and UDAAP ( Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts or Practices ) 12 USC 5531 The timing strongly indicates retaliation for asserting my legal rights. \n\n\n\n5. Resulting ChexSystems Harm Ignored Even though Wells Fargo claimed they do not use ChexSystems, my ChexSystems file now shows negative activity directly tied to their account closure. \n\nWells Fargo failed to explain : Why negative DDA data appeared How their retaliatory closure caused additional downstream harm Why this harm has not been corrected This remains unresolved and continues to impact my ability to open accounts. \n\n\n\nRequested CFPB Action Because Wells Fargos response is incomplete and non-compliant with federal law, I request : 1. CFPB supervisory escalation 2. A directive requiring Wells Fargo to : Correctly categorize the dispute as merchant/services-not-received Conduct a legally compliant Regulation E investigation Review all evidence and contact the merchant as required Provide a documented, non-retaliatory explanation for the account closure Remove or correct any negative XXXX  reporting caused by their actions Provide a complete, evidence-supported written response Conclusion Wells Fargo : Mischaracterized my dispute Failed to conduct a lawful investigation Denied my appeal improperly Retaliated by closing my account Caused XXXX  harm Violated Regulation E and UDAAP Provided an incomplete response I request immediate CFPB escalation and supervisory review.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-12-03T23:53:49.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"33467","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18083587","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2025-12-03T23:46:47.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Problem using a debit or ATM card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Mischaracterizing the dispute category allowed Wells Fargo to avoid a proper <em>investigation</em>. \nThis violates 12 CFR 1005.11, <em>which</em> requires banks to <em>investigate</em> based on the error alleged. \n\nWells Fargo ignored the actual issue I reported. \n\n\n\n2."]},"sort":[16.9755,"18083587"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13768481","_score":16.932552,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I am submitting this complaint against TransUnion for its repeated failure to properly investigate and correct inaccurate and retaliatory credit reporting related to a dispute with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX \n\nDespite having an active dispute regarding a {$2100.00} charge for services not rendered, as well as open complaints with multiple government agencies, TransUnion continues to enable XXXX  damaging credit behavior. \n\nI currently have the following open complaints : CFPB Complaint ( initial, XXXX ) : No. XXXX New York Attorney General ( AGNY ) : Intake # XXXX Office of the Comptroller of the Currency ( OCC ) : Case No. XXXX I have been disputing this debt for at least five months, and TransUnion has completely failed to provide a functional system to allow me to view, track, or resolve these disputes. \n\nXXXX portal blocks me from accessing my own credit report, viewing or submitting disputes, or adding a personal statement. The system consistently shows a not available at this time message. I can only access my report through XXXX, which then simply reroutes me to XXXX broken interface when I want to file a dispute. \n\nIve made multiple attempts to correct my accounts and the access issues. I submitted previous CFPB complaints for both, contacted XXXX customer service repeatedly, and even messaged them via XXXX customer support portal for over a month. Nothing was fixed. \n\nOn XX/XX/year>, my disputes were recently approved via XXXX XXXX regarding XXXX and two other creditors, yet TransUnion has still not updated any of the tradelines or marked them under dispute, unlike XXXX  and XXXX, who updated theirs more promptly. TransUnions hand in hand inaction with XXXX  is discriminatory, retaliatory, and places me at a financial disadvantage. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, while all of these complaints were still pending, TransUnion published new derogatory updates from XXXX  including : A 90-day late mark ( for XXXX ) Over-limit status Account closure These updates did not appear until XX/XX/XXXX however, suggesting TransUnion allowed XXXX  to delay posting them while deciding on further retaliation ( after I reported XXXX  to CFPB for unverified bureau reporting ) . Meanwhile, XXXX XXXX is actively under investigation by multiple regulators. This is a gross violation of FCRA and shows that TransUnion is complicit. \n\nEven worse, XXXX continues to send me monthly statements showing a {$360.00} minimum payment due, but TransUnion allows them to report the minimum as a mere {$87.00}, proving the tradeline is inaccurate and contradicts XXXX own billing. \n\nAllys reported history to Transunion jumps from green checks in XXXX and XX/XX/year> to a sudden 60-day late mark in XXXX and 90-day late in XXXX yet XXXX  said the accounXXXX XXXX XXXXady closed on XX/XX/XXXX, and XXXX  told XXXX  it closed XX/XX/XXXX, while the CFPB dispute was still open through XX/XX/XXXX. This inconsistency across bureaus is further proof of inaccurate and retaliatory furnishing. \n\nWhen confronted, Experian backtracked and changed the record from 90 days ( in XXXX ) to only 60 days late in XXXX, which shows the data is not reliable or verified. TransUnion has not corrected anything ... outright refusing. \n\nMore proof of TransUnions poor verification process : According to a XX/XX/year> XXXX  verification notice ( confirmation # XXXX ), the XXXX account was reported as Pays as agreed, with no past due and no delinquencies. In XXXX, the XXXX account was under an open dispute and no late payment should have been reported. Then by XXXX, XXXX was already being investigated by the New York Attorney General and the OCC, so I dont understand how they justified backdating past due marks or where their 90 days late designation is even coming from. Worse, XXXX closed my account and reported it as such without providing advance notice or a formal explanation. I was not informed of the closure or any justification for it. On what grounds did XXXX close the account and what made TransUnion accept this retaliatory information without question? \n\nAt this point, I reserve all rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), including the right to seek damages for negligent or willful noncompliance. Any continued reporting of false, inconsistent, or retaliatory information may be treated as evidence of systemic abuse and bad faith.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-05-29T08:55:08.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"11219","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13768481","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-05-29T07:54:37.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Account status incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This inconsistency across bureaus is further proof of inaccurate and <em>retaliatory</em> furnishing. \n\nWhen confronted, Experian backtracked and changed the record from 90 days ( in XXXX ) to only 60 days late in XXXX, <em>which</em> <em>shows</em> the data is not reliable or verified. TransUnion has not corrected anything ... outright refusing."]},"sort":[16.932552,"13768481"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"1674306","_score":13.091773,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"American Express continues to harass and take action against us, even though we paid in full the amount they allege is in dispute. They now state there has been XXXX investigations of our dispute ( now paid in full ) and they continue to state the dispute investigation was as a result of a pre-litigation request from us, which is false. We never stated we would go into litigation, and we only stated that absent resolve we would exercise all legal remedies available. We made it clear that all we ever wanted was a line by line accounting of charges. We have never received any copies of any investigations from American Express that would show us where the charges we can not see on our account were entered as a line item charge. We also did not authorize XXXX charge that American Express paid in spite of the fact we never authorized this charge and had a valid legal dispute with the merchant. In retaliation for exercising our rights under law and for reporting to cfpb, our account was canceled one day before the due date for payment in full of the balance due. On that same day we arranged payment by a bank credit card wire transfer of the disputed amount as an act of good faith, and we had already arranged for payment in full to be withdrawn from our bank account prior to the closing date on the American Express account as is and had been our custom with American Express over many years, with no issues. Upon arranging payment in full I requested the card be reinstated as it was improperly canceled in contravention to the 'fair truth and lending act. ' First, we were told we had a poor payment record with American Express, which was not supported in fact. Then we were sent a letter stating we had a poor FICO score, when our FICO score was XXXX the day the American Express account was canceled, XXXX more point and the score would be in the excellent range. They stated this was based upon XXXX, which is exactly where we obtained our FICO score. Now, if they go in and change our FICO score as further retaliation for exercising our right of dispute, this will be a further violation of law, and this is also something about which we should not have to worry and check on day after dat. Also, there were chargebacks in multiples to our XXXX account all on the same day, XXXX/XXXX/2015 -- and as to XXXX of these chargebacks, they were made on charges never billed by XXXX XXXX, and another chargeback was broken down into XXXX separate charge backs, and the total amount was what we had already authorized to pay, {$100.00}, causing us to have to go into the account and inquire was to what happened to that payment. All of this came as a flood of retaliatory actions against us and/or fraudulent charge back billing to XXXX from American Express. There are also similar problems with XXXX XXXX -- and both of these accounts were on auto payment schedules or personally scheduled by my hand XXXXas to XXXX XXXX ). The American Express account is paid now and they will have all funds prior to the closing date, including the amount in dispute that American Express never properly investigated. We have run spread sheets each month and always paid what we have charged in full, except for the amount in dispute. We have stated as to {$1700.00} there was no line item charges ( cyber fraud ) and that the amount paid by American Express of {$2100.00} to XXXX, this amount was never authorized by us to be paid. We have proof of this, The total we paid through bank card wire transfer was {$3400.00}, and we did this in good faith ; and we are still expecting a line by line reconciliation that began with {$260.00} in unsubstantiated charge totals, and rose each month until it reached the {$1700.00}. Now we are deprived of our earned rewards as well. This is wrong. We want the rewards.","date_sent_to_company":"2015-11-28T04:04:49.000Z","issue":"Other","sub_product":null,"zip_code":"919XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"1674306","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY","date_received":"2015-11-28T04:04:47.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["We have never received any copies of any <em>investigations</em> from American Express that would <em>show</em> us where the charges we can not see on our account were entered as a line item charge. We also did not authorize XXXX charge that American Express paid in spite of the fact we never authorized this charge and had a valid legal dispute with the merchant."]},"sort":[13.091773,"1674306"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13010396","_score":12.69299,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"Consumer Complaint Submission to CFPB To : Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Subject : Formal Complaint Regarding Citibanks Coercive Settlement Tactics and Arbitration Dispute Handling Dear Sir/Madam, I am filing this formal complaint against Citibank for improper conduct in relation to an ongoing arbitration process, the handling of my accounts, and the negative impact on my credit report. Citibank has exhibited consistent bad faith actions, including the use of deceptive settlement tactics, obstruction of formal dispute resolution channels, and manipulation of communication to avoid a fair resolution. \n\nBackground : 1. Arbitration and Coercive Settlement Offers : - I initiated an arbitration claim with Citibank through the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ), regarding two accounts that were the only ones reporting negatively on my credit report. In response, Citibank filed a counterclaim only after I initiated arbitration. This counterclaim appears to be retaliatory, aimed at undermining my legitimate claim and intimidating me. \n- Citibank subsequently attempted to settle the matter by email, bypassing the formal XXXX settlement platform. In their email, they pressured me to drop my arbitration claim in exchange for dropping their counterclaim. However, the core issuecorrecting the account status on my credit reportremained unresolved. Citibank justified their refusal to address this issue by citing a projected bankruptcy. \n\n2. Misrepresentation Regarding Bankruptcy : - Citibank claimed they could not update/adjust the credit bureaus, surrounding the two accounts on my claim ( only ones displaying negatively on my credit report ) due to the \" potential of bankruptcy '', even though no bankruptcy proceedings have been filed. This assertion is misleading and violates the principles of bankruptcy law. \n- Under 11 U.S.C. 524 ( a ) ( 2 ), actions are prohibited only post-dischargenot pre-filing. Their reasoning contradicts established bankruptcy law.\n\n- Citibanks refusal to correct the tradeline reporting based on speculative bankruptcy proceedings violates obligations under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ) and appears to be a deceptive act under the Dodd-Frank Acts UDAAP provisions ( 1031 ).\n\n3. Settlement Attempts made in Good Faith by me, including Citibanks Bad Faith : - I have made two separate, formal, settlement attempts using XXXX  Settlement Tool : - The first attempt was formal but appears to have been ignored by Citibank. The offer eventually expired without any response. \n- The second formal attempt was acknowledged informally via email but was not processed through the formal XXXX  tool, and the offer expired once again due to no follow-up from Citibank. \n\n4. Failure to Communicate and Avoidance of Formal Channels : - Despite making multiple attempts to communicate via phone, Citibank failed to respond to my requests for a phone call to discuss a resolution. In their email offering a settlement on their terms, they stated that I could contact them instead, demonstrating their coercive, uncooperative and unprofessional manner. \n\n5. Manipulation of Communication and Circumventing Formal Dispute Resolution : - Citibank buried their settlement offer in an email thread, going around the formal XXXX dispute resolution process entirely. Prior to Citibanks response, I asked within the same email thread, I asked ( expecting XXXX to respond ) if I should discuss potential settlement in front of XXXX. or within the formal XXXX settlement process, Citibank stepped in and removed the XXXX representative ( the Manager of XXXX XXXX ) from the thread. This deliberate attempt to bypass the proper arbitration process was done without any notice or clarification. When I responded to all, my email system automatically added the XXXX representative back into the conversation, exposing Citibanks attempt to manipulate the process and avoid the formal arbitration channels. Citibank then filed an objection stating that I should not have shared our communication with XXXX, asking that to be sent to the arbitrator without any other context or apparent concern. \nCitibanks conduct suggests an intentional strategy to intimidate, manipulate, and withhold a fair resolution of this matter. I believe their actions amount to coercion and retaliation against me for initiating arbitration, or otherwise. Their refusal to engage through the proper channels, their inaccurate claims regarding bankruptcy, and their avoidance of legitimate communication have left me with no choice but to file this complaint. \n\n6. Retaliatory and Selective Reporting : - Citibank delayed filing a counterclaim for over three years and only did so after I initiated arbitration. This strongly suggests retaliatory intent.\n\n- The only accounts reported negatively are those involved in arbitration my arbitration claimfurther proving selective and punitive action. \n\n7. Suppression and Inconsistency in Reporting : - Other Citibank accounts were suppressed or removed, while disputed accounts remained having been reported negatively. This inconsistency shows an intent to penalize and discredit me during dispute proceedings. \n\nLegal and Regulatory Basis for Complaint : - Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) : Requires accurate reporting. Citibanks actions are contrary to this requirement.\n\n- Bankruptcy Code 11 U.S.C. 524 ( a ) ( 2 ) : Prohibits post-discharge collection, not reporting corrections before filing.\n\n- Dodd-Frank Act 1031 & 12 U.S.C. 5531 : Protects against unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts and practices ( UDAAP ). \n- XXXX Consumer Arbitration Rules Rule 20 ( a ) : Requires XXXX to be informed of settlements, which Citibank bypassed. \n- XXXX Code of Ethics XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX : Calls for fairness and full transparency from all parties. \n\nRequest for Investigation : Given the issues displayed above, I respectfully request that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ), along with other relevant regulatory bodies, investigate Citibanks actions. Specifically, I am asking for an investigation into how their behavior : - Violates consumer protections regarding the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and bankruptcy law, - Constitutes coercive settlement tactics intended to intimidate me, - Involves manipulation of formal dispute resolution channels to circumvent arbitration and avoid proper legal scrutiny. \nConclusion : Citibanks actions are damaging to my financial and credit standing, along with my ability to resolve this matter fairly. I request that regulatory authorities take appropriate action to investigate Citibanks conduct and ensure that their actions comply with relevant consumer protection laws. \n\nThank you for your attention to this matter.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-04-16T00:54:48.000Z","issue":"Credit monitoring or identity theft protection services","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"77095","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13010396","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CITIBANK, N.A.","date_received":"2025-04-16T00:37:34.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Billing dispute for services"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["- XXXX Consumer Arbitration Rules Rule 20 ( a ) : Requires XXXX to be informed of settlements, <em>which</em> Citibank bypassed. \n- XXXX Code of Ethics XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX : Calls for fairness and full transparency from all parties. \n\nRequest for <em>Investigation</em> : Given the issues displayed above, I respectfully request that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ), along with other relevant regulatory bodies, <em>investigate</em> Citibanks actions."]},"sort":[12.69299,"13010396"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16920791","_score":12.127615,"_source":{"product":"Prepaid card","complaint_what_happened":"Subject : Formal Complaint PayPal , Inc . Violation of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ) and Regulation E To : Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Attn : Office of Consumer Response XXXX. XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX DC XXXX Via : www.consumerfinance.gov/complaint Complainant : Name : XXXX XXXX XXXX Phone : XXXX Email : XXXX Respondent : Entity : PayPal , Inc . \nAddress : XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, CA XXXX Issuer : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. ( PayPal Debit XXXX Issuer ) To Whom It May Concern : This letter constitutes a formal legal complaint against PayPal , Inc. for repeated and willful violations of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ), 15 U.S.C. 1693 et seq., and its implementing regulation, Regulation E ( 12 CFR Part 1005 ). PayPal failed to investigate, protect, and refund a series of clearly unauthorized electronic fund transfers totaling {$3500.00}, and subsequently engaged in retaliatory action by permanently limiting my account after I followed PayPals own procedures and fully complied with applicable law. These actions constitute unlawful practices that have caused me substantial financial, academic, and personal harm. \n\nXXXX. Summary of Events On XX/XX/year>, at approximately XXXX XXXX, I discovered that my Paypal account balance was unexpectedly low after receiving my school tuition refund of {$4500.00} the day prior. Upon further investigation, I found that my PayPal Debit XXXX ( issued by The XXXX XXXX  ) had been used XXXX times without authorization between the evening of XX/XX/XXXX and the morning of XX/XX/XXXX, totaling {$3500.00}. All of The charges were made to XXXX XXXX and XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX during overnight hours, with several of the transactions occurring within the same minute, indicating automated or fraudulent activity. \nAt XXXX XXXX, less than XXXX minutes after discovery, I contacted PayPal by telephone to report the unauthorized transactions. The representative confirmed the activity appeared suspicious and instructed me to obtain documentation from the merchant confirming that no account in my name existed. \n\nOver the next XXXX weeks, I made more than XXXX attempts by phone and email to obtain such documentation from XXXX. The merchant confirmed in writing : My email address is not registered to any XXXX account. \n\nMy card number and personal information do not match any user or record. \nNo transaction history exists associated with my details. \n\nAll documentation was provided to PayPal multiple times, per PayPals instructions. \n\nXXXX. PayPals Gross Negligence, Mishandling and Breach of Statutory Obligations Despite my full compliance and timely reporting, PayPal failed to meet multiple obligations imposed by EFTA 1693f and 1693g and Regulation E, 12 CFR 1005.6 and 1005.11.\n\na ) Failure to investigate within required timeframes Under 12 CFR 1005.11 ( c ) ( 1 ), a financial institution must investigate any reported error ( including unauthorized electronic fund transfers ) promptly and resolve the matter within 10 business days of receiving notice. If additional time is needed, provisional credit must be provided. PayPal denied XXXX of XXXX disputes within XXXX dayswell before any meaningful investigation could have occurredconstituting a prima facie violation of 1005.11 ( c ). \n\nb ) Failure to provide provisional credit Per 12 CFR 1005.11 ( c ) ( 2 ) ( i ), if an institution can not conclude an investigation within 10 business days, it must provisionally credit the consumers account for the disputed amount ( including interest where applicable ) and provide written notice within two business days. PayPal issued no provisional credit, thereby depriving me of critical access to funds intended for tuition and education-related expenses, in violation of EFTA 1693f ( c ). \n\nc ) Failure to provide written explanation and access to evidence When a financial institution determines no error occurred, 1005.11 ( d ) ( 1 ) requires a written explanation of findings and a statement of the consumers right to request copies of documents relied upon. Despite multiple written and verbal requests, PayPal provided only a cursory denial ( We found these transactions were authorized ) and refused to produce any supporting documentation. This refusal constitutes a clear violation of 1005.11 ( d ) ( 1 ).\n\nd ) Failure to limit consumer liability Under 12 CFR 1005.6 ( b ) ( 1 ), if the consumer notifies the institution within two business days of learning of unauthorized use, liability is limited to no more than {$50.00}. I reported the fraud within minutes of discovery, well within this statutory window. PayPals refusal to credit my account, combined with its denial of my dispute, unlawfully shifted full liability onto me in direct contravention of EFTA 1693g ( a ).\n\ne ) Retaliatory account limitation Following my repeated attempts to obtain compliance and lawful resolution, PayPal permanently limited my account, citing abuse of the dispute process. This constitutes a retaliatory action designed to deter the exercise of rights protected under EFTA 1693m ( civil liability ) and violates the fundamental principle of good faith in consumer protection enforcement.\n\n3. Systemic Failures and Gross Negligence PayPal ignored clear indicators of fraud, including 44 identical transactions executed in rapid succession overnight.\n\nIts adjudication was inconsistentone charge may have been reversed, while 43 others with identical patterns were denied without explanation. \n\n\nPayPal disregarded documentation from the merchant confirming no account linkage, violating 1005.11 ( c ) ( 4 ) ( v ) - ( vi ), which mandates consideration of any relevant information within the institutions own records.\n\nRequests for the documents used to reach denial were ignored, violating 1005.11 ( d ) ( 1 ).\n\nThe permanent limitation of my account following legitimate disputes constitutes retaliatory interference and demonstrates institutional negligence and bad faith. \n\n\n\nXXXX. Consequences and Harm Loss of {$3500.00} in unauthorized debits, representing tuition refund funds. \n\n\nInability to purchase required educational materials, resulting in withdrawal from my academic program. \nSevere emotional distress, reputational harm, and disruption to personal and academic progress. \n\n\nDenial of access to essential financial tools and payment services due to retaliatory account termination. \n\n\n\nXXXX. Legal Authority Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ), 15 U.S.C. 16931693r Regulation E, 12 CFR Part 1005 1005.6 Liability of consumer for unauthorized transfers 1005.10 Preauthorized transfers 1005.11 Procedures for resolving errors Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) Official Interpretations of Regulation E 15 U.S.C. 1693m ( a ) Civil liability for noncompliance ( actual and statutory damages, attorneys fees, and costs ) 6. Nature of Violations Violation of 12 CFR 1005.11 ( c ) ( 1 ) Failure to conduct prompt investigation.\n\nViolation of 12 CFR 1005.11 ( c ) ( 2 ) ( i ) Failure to issue provisional credit within 10 business days.\n\nViolation of 12 CFR 1005.11 ( d ) ( 1 ) Failure to provide written findings and supporting documentation. \n\n\nViolation of 12 CFR 1005.6 ( b ) ( 1 ) Improper denial of consumer liability limitation ( {$50.00} cap ).\n\nRetaliatory account limitation inconsistent with good-faith compliance under EFTA 1693m .\n\n7. Timeline of Key Events XXXX XXXX XXXX : Unauthorized transactions occur ( XXXX charges totaling {$3500.00} ). \n\n\nXX/XX/year> ( XXXX PM ) : I report all transactions as unauthorized to PayPal. \n\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX, 2025 : I make over XXXX attempts to obtain written verification from XXXX, which confirms no account exists in my name. \n\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX : PayPal requests I submit evidence, which I do. \n\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX : I resubmit all documents multiple times per PayPals requests. \n\n\nXX/XX/year> : PayPal denies XXXX of the XXXX disputes without explanation. \n\n\nXX/XX/year> : My appeal is rejected with a generic response and no documentation. \n\n\nXX/XX/year> : PayPal permanently limits my account for abuse of dispute process. \n\n\nXXXX. XXXX of Events including XXXX  Below is the complete, verified timeline of events summarizing my interactions with XXXX  and the related transactions for PayPals dispute investigation. This information has been relayed to Paypal numerous times by email, phone, and the uploading of documents through the Paypal message center. \nPaypal has chosen to ignore the information and has denied the claims and refused to refund my money despite XXXX giving written confirmation XXXX separate times that my email and identity are not tied to a XXXX account. Furthermore, they gave me written confirmation multiple times, by multiple employees, they don't have any record of these transactions. These written statements from XXXX satisfies the requests made by PAYPAL, confirming that my information is not linked to an account where the charges occurred. This is what Paypal instructed me to get from XXXX, and is the proof they needed to make the determination that the charges were unauthorized and issue the appropriate refund. The written confirmation from XXXX further proves that the charges made using my PayPal debit card were completely unauthorized, not associated with me nor linked to an account associated with me.. \nXX/XX/year> I discovered that my PayPal balance was unexpectedly low after receiving a tuition refund of {$4500.00} the day before. \n\n\nUpon review, I found XXXX unauthorized transactions from XXXX XXXX and XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, totaling {$3500.00}. \n\n\nI immediately contacted PayPal ( XXXX XXXX  ) and reported the transactions as unauthorized. \n\nXX/XX/year> Spoke with A PayPal Rep and was told to get something from XXXX that shows my name is not associated with an account where my debit card was used Request # : I contacted XXXX via phone to report the unauthorized use of my PayPal debit card, and asked for the information that Paypal requested Request number XXXX : I sent XXXX via email documents that i created to assist in the investigation XXXX issued Ticket # XXXX, acknowledging receipt of my request. ( Source : XXXX - We have received your request XXXX ) XX/XX/year> I sent a XXXX Request for XXXX and asked for them to take my attached information and check their system for the requested information. \nXXXX XXXX, ( XXXX ) responded to my outreach and confirmed that my email address is not registered to any accounts in their system. \nXXXX wrote : Dear XXXX Thank you for contacting XXXX Pennsylvania XXXX XXXX. \n\nYour email address is not registered to any accounts in our system. \nIf you have an account with us and have access to the email address registered on it, please send us your query from it or make live contact with our support team via chat or phone. \n\nXX/XX/year> XXXX sent a follow-up request for verification documents, asking for : First XXXX and last XXXX digits of card Total amount of unauthorized transactions Supporting bank statements XX/XX/year> I responded to XXXX request ( via XXXX, XXXXXXXX XXXX  ), providing all requested documentation and a detailed explanation. \n\n\nI reiterated that PayPal required documentation showing the XXXX  account tied to these transactions is not in my name. \n\n\nI provided transaction details, totaling {$3500.00}, and clearly stated that these were unauthorized charges. \n\n\nAttachments included PayPal transaction records and screenshots showing each charge. \n\n\n\nXX/XX/year> XXXX ( XXXX ) replied, stating the matter was escalated to their operations team and asked for XXXX hours for review. \n\n\nI followed up that evening, noting no update or communication had been received. \n\n\n\nXX/XX/year> XXXX ( XXXX ) replied, claiming the review was still ongoing and asked for patience. \n\n\nI responded the same day, stating that my request was simple and could be completed in minutes, not weeks. \n\n\nI emphasized I was only asking XXXX  to confirm whether the account tied to these transactions was registered under my name or not, and warned I would escalate to regulators if not addressed by XX/XX/XXXX. \n\n\n\nXX/XX/year> After no further response, I followed up again (??? ). \n\n\nLater that day, XXXX ( XXXX ) responded, stating : We were not able to locate an account that matches the transactions provided with the card details previously shared. \n\n\n\nXXXX again requested the same documentation ( first XXXX / last XXXX digits, statement, and card images ) all of which had already been submitted. \n\n\n\nXX/XX/year> I replied, expressing frustration that XXXX kept requesting the same information, pointing out that I had already submitted all documents multiple times and that the matter was overdue. \n\n\nLater that day, another XXXX  representative ( XXXX ) repeated the same message as XXXX again stating no matching account was found and asking for the same materials again. \nWe were not able to locate an account that matches the transactions provided with the card details previously shared. \n\n\n\n\nXX/XX/year> I again provided the requested information for a third time, including : PayPal XXXX XXXX ending in XXXX XXXXXXXX Issuing bank : XXXX XXXX transactions totaling {$3500.00} Despite this, Paypal has ignored this information and chose not to review it. \n\n\nXXXX. Requested Remedies Pursuant to XXXX XXXX ( civil liability for noncompliance ), I request that PayPal and any relevant oversight bodies take the following corrective actions : Reverse all denials and refund the full {$3500.00} in unauthorized charges. \n\n\nProvide {$25000.00} in punitive and compensatory damages for financial losses, educational disruption, and emotional distress. \n\n\nIssue a formal written acknowledgment and apology for procedural and investigative failures. \n\n\nImmediately lift the permanent account limitation and restore full access. \nImplement corrective measures to ensure : Timely investigations and provisional credits per 1005.11 ( c ).\n\nWritten explanations and disclosure of evidence per 1005.11 ( d ).\n\nProhibition of retaliatory account actions against consumers asserting protected rights.\n\nProvide regulators with all internal records, including fraud-detection logs, denial rationales, investigator notes, and communications regarding this case.\n\n10. Conclusion I have acted in full good faith, complied with all PayPal instructions, and fulfilled every requirement under EFTA and Regulation E, which includes the reporting of the unauthorized transactions immediately and promptly. I have followed every instruction given by paypal in the process and provided all requested evidence multiple times. The documentation proves these transactions were unauthorized and not tied to me in any way. PayPal representatives have confirmed that these are not authorized and assured me when providing these documentations it would satisfy the unlawful demands that paypal requested. By law, paypal has no right to demand that a consumer must contact a merchant in order to file a dispute over an unauthorized transaction. \nThe evidence provided incontrovertibly establishes that these transactions were unauthorized and that PayPals handling of the matter constitutes multiple regulatory violations.\n\nPayPals unlawful conduct and actions violate my rights multiple times, including its failure to investigate, denial of provisional credit, lack of written explanation, refusal to provide documentation, failure to limit consumer liability, and retaliatory account termination. These violate both the letter and spirit of federal consumer protection law and my rights as a consumer. \nPaypal chose to not address or acknowledge this gross negligence and mishandling of this case, and instead attempted to gaslight me with their retaliatory account termination, by claiming abuse of their dispute process hoping I would just go away and not pursue this any further. This is not only unacceptable but unlawful and has caused me significant financial and personal hardship. I am seeking immediate corrective action, a refund of my stolen funds, punitive damages and accountability for the repeated failures in this case. I respectfully request that PayPal and their gross negligence, be compelled to remedy these violations immediately and that appropriate enforcement and compliance actions be undertaken by relevant regulatory authorities. \nThank you for your time and attention to this serious matter. \n\nRespectfully submitted, XXXX : XXXX XXXX XXXX Phone : XXXX Email : XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-10-30T18:36:48.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase or transfer","sub_product":"General-purpose prepaid card","zip_code":"196XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"16920791","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Paypal Holdings, Inc","date_received":"2025-10-30T18:19:17.000Z","state":"PA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase or transfer"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>Retaliatory</em> account limitation inconsistent with good-<em>faith</em> compliance under EFTA 1693m .\n\n7. Timeline of Key Events XXXX XXXX XXXX : Unauthorized transactions occur ( XXXX charges totaling {$3500.00} ). \n\n\nXX/XX/year> ( XXXX PM ) : I report all transactions as unauthorized to PayPal. \n\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX, 2025 : I make over XXXX attempts to obtain written verification from XXXX, <em>which</em> confirms no account exists in my name. \n\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX : PayPal requests I submit evidence, <em>which</em> I do."]},"sort":[12.127615,"16920791"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"10352449","_score":11.6713915,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Summary of Issues for CFPB Complaint Against Goldman Sachs 1. Inaccurate or Misleading Justification for Credit Limit Reduction : Issue : Goldman Sachs reduced the Apple Card credit limit from {$5000.00} to {$1500.00} ( a 70 % reduction ), citing a \" recent drop '' in the users XXXX XXXX XXXX and that the user was reported as past due on one or more accounts. \nProblem : The provided reason does not align with the user 's credit history. The user 's credit score has been consistently low for over two years with no new negative items. Additionally, the user has made timely payments on this card, including interest, and recently paid off the balance. \nPotential Violation : This action could violate the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) under 1681m, which requires that adverse actions based on credit information must be justified, accurate, and specific to the consumers actual credit profile. \n\n2. Failure to Properly Consider Fraud Alerts and Credit Freezes : Issue : The user 's information was compromised, leading to the placement of fraud alerts and credit freezes on all major credit bureaus. This was a proactive measure to prevent identity theft and not indicative of a drop in creditworthiness.\n\nProblem : The reduction occurred shortly after the credit freezes were implemented, which suggests that the bank may have misinterpreted the presence of fraud alerts and freezes as a negative credit event. This approach conflicts with the FCRA 's requirement that fraud alerts or credit freezes should not result in adverse actions by creditors. \nPotential Violation : Under the FCRA, adverse actions taken solely because of the presence of fraud alerts or freezes without considering the underlying creditworthiness may be viewed as an unfair practice.\n\n3. Retaliatory Reduction Following Positive Account Activity : Issue : The credit limit reduction occurred 22 days after the user paid off the balance on the account.\n\nProblem : This timing suggests potential balance chasing, a practice where credit limits are reduced after a payoff, making the action appear punitive rather than a response to changes in credit risk. This could be viewed as an unfair, deceptive, or abusive act or practice ( UDAAP ) under CFPB guidelines. \nPotential Violation : The Credit CARD Act of 2009 mandates that decisions to reduce credit limits should be based on clear, objective creditworthiness criteria and not arbitrary actions that harm consumers after positive financial behavior.\n\n4. Lack of Good Faith Compliance and Preventable Harm : Issue : The user requested that the bank temporarily restore the credit limit during its 10-day review period to prevent further harm to the credit score. The bank refused, despite being aware of the negative impact on the users credit utilization ratio and overall credit profile. \nProblem : The banks refusal to act to prevent ongoing damage, while conducting a review that could ultimately show that the reduction was improper, suggests a lack of good faith and reasonable measures to prevent harm. \nPotential Violation : This could be seen as a failure to act reasonably under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act ( ECOA ) if the refusal is based on inappropriate factors. \n\n5. Adverse Action Notice Does Not Align with Credit Profile : Issue : The adverse action notice states that the reduction was based on a \" recent drop in the XXXX XXXX XXXX '' and a report of being \" past due on one or more accounts. '' Problem : The users credit profile does not show new delinquencies or a recent score drop beyond the consistent low score maintained for over two years. This suggests that the decision might be based on incorrect or incomplete credit information. \nPotential Violation : This may be a violation of FCRAs requirements for adverse action notices under 1681m, which mandates that the specific factors leading to adverse decisions must be clearly stated and accurate.\n\nRequested Remedies : Immediate Restoration of the Credit Limit to the previous amount of {$5000.00} pending a thorough review of the decision. \n\nCompensatory Damages for any negative impact on credit scores, financial harm due to increased credit utilization ratio, and emotional distress. \n\nRequest for Reconsideration and Re-Evaluation of the users credit profile, taking into account the positive payment history and the protective nature of fraud alerts and freezes. \nInvestigate Potential UDAAP Violations related to the timing and nature of the credit limit reduction.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-10-04T01:08:25.000Z","issue":"Problem with fraud alerts or security freezes","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"89014","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"10352449","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"GOLDMAN SACHS BANK USA","date_received":"2024-10-04T00:43:24.000Z","state":"NV","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>Investigate</em> Potential UDAAP Violations related to the timing and nature of the credit limit reduction."]},"sort":[11.6713915,"10352449"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14267126","_score":11.474515,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"To Whom It May Concern : I am filing this complaint regarding a new and separate incident involving Chase Bank. \n\nAfter Chase abruptly closed my XXXX primary credit cards on XX/XX/year> ( without warning or explanation, and during a business trip ), my Chase Online Banking account prompted me to apply for a new credit card. I applied, and within XXXX hours, I was approved for the new card : Freedom Flex. This approval required Chase to review my credit, resulting in a hard inquiry on my credit report. I applied for this card about a week after my calls to Chase failed to resolve or explain the prior account closures. Yet, I hoped that the new offer was a gesture of good faith from Chase, showing that it continued to value me as a customer after XXXX years of banking with them. \n\nHowever, on XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX days after its openingChase closed this newly approved credit card as well, again without explanation or notification. \n\nI had not made any transactions with this new card. I had not violated any account agreements or policies. Yet, Chase still sent me the physical card and the welcome email/letter on XX/XX/year>, as shown in the pictures. \n\nI want to stress that the only action I took was applying and being approved, based on Chases invitation through my online banking portal. \n\nThis patternapproving me for a new card and then closing it within a weekis strongly retaliatory, especially since the closure of my previous cards was already under dispute and is, as of now, still under investigation without a detailed response. This attitude was brutal, and the unnecessary hard inquiry on my credit report ( which caused my score to drop ) has further harmed me financially. It felt like a direct, vindictive attack on my finances and a careless banking maneuver, especially since my application was reviewed and approved manuallyit took almost XXXX hours for someone to review my application, so it was not an automatic, instant acceptance that could be claimed as a system error. Even if that were the case, being baited into applying for a card that Chase never intended to keep open shows Chases true predatory face.\n\nAgain, I reiterate the details of my claim : I have been an exemplary Chase cardholder and banking customer for about XXXX years, never missed a payment, and my credit score remains as high as XXXX, even after Chases hard inquiry. Right now, Chases hostility and shady attitude not only damage my finances but also threaten my ability to plan for the future, buy a house, and investall while infringing on my rights as a citizen to hold fair banking. \n\nChases behavior may violate fair credit application and use practices, as well as the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, since Chase is now clearly and directly denying me access to any of their credit products without just cause or transparency, as demonstrated by their inadequate response to the original complaint and this second attack on my ability to hold fair banking with them.To Whom It May Concern : I am filing this complaint regarding a new and separate incident involving Chase Bank.\n\nAfter Chase abruptly closed my XXXX primary credit cards on XX/XX/year> ( without warning or explanation, and during a business trip ), my Chase Online Banking account prompted me to apply for a new credit card. I applied, and within XXXX hours, I was approved for the new card : Freedom Flex. This approval required Chase to review my credit, resulting in a hard inquiry on my credit report. I applied for this card about a week after my calls to Chase failed to resolve or explain the prior account closures. Yet, I hoped that the new offer was a gesture of good faith from Chase, showing that it continued to value me as a customer after XXXX years of banking with them. \n\nHowever, on XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX days after its openingChase closed this newly approved credit card as well, again without explanation or notification. \n\nI had not made any transactions with this new card. I had not violated any account agreements or policies. Yet, Chase still sent me the physical card and the welcome email/letter on XX/XX/year>, as shown in the pictures. \n\nI want to stress that the only action I took was applying and being approved, based on Chases invitation through my online banking portal. \n\nThis patternapproving me for a new card and then closing it within a weekis strongly retaliatory, especially since the closure of my previous cards was already under dispute and is, as of now, still under investigation without a detailed response. This attitude was brutal, and the unnecessary hard inquiry on my credit report ( which caused my score to drop ) has further harmed me financially. It felt like a direct, vindictive attack on my finances and a careless banking maneuver, especially since my application was reviewed and approved manuallyit took almost XXXX hours for someone to review my application, so it was not an automatic, instant acceptance that could be claimed as a system error. Even if that were the case, being baited into applying for a card that Chase never intended to keep open shows Chases true predatory face.\n\nAgain, I reiterate the details of my claim : I have been an exemplary Chase cardholder and banking customer for about XXXX years, never missed a payment, and my credit score remains as high as XXXX ( XXXX XXXX, just before the card hard inquiry ). Right now, Chases hostility and shady attitude not only damage my finances but also threaten my ability to plan for the future, buy a house, grow, and investall while infringing on my rights as a citizen to hold fair banking and have access to my new and long-established credit lines. \n\nChases behavior may violate fair credit application and use practices, as well as the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, since Chase is now clearly and directly denying me access to any of their credit products without just cause or transparency, as demonstrated by their inadequate response to the original complaint and this second attack on my ability to hold fair banking with them.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-06-24T19:19:26.000Z","issue":"Closing your account","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"90005","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14267126","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","date_received":"2025-06-24T18:04:33.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Company closed your account"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This patternapproving me for a new card and then closing it within a weekis strongly <em>retaliatory</em>, especially since the closure of my previous cards was already under dispute and is, as of now, still under <em>investigation</em> without a detailed response. This attitude was brutal, and the unnecessary hard inquiry on my credit report ( <em>which</em> caused my score to drop ) has further harmed me financially."]},"sort":[11.474515,"14267126"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"12815189","_score":11.0584545,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"To the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau : I am filing this complaint regarding what I believe to be an unfair and potentially retaliatory action taken by Barclays Bank Delaware in response to a full payment made on my credit card account. \n\nI have been a Barclays credit card holder since XX/XX/XXXX. My credit limit was {$4300.00}, and my payment due date is the XXXX of each month. In XX/XX/XXXX, I was late on my payment. My total balance had reached {$4500.00}. On XX/XX/XXXX, I made a payment of {$50.00}. Then, on XX/XX/XXXX, I paid the remaining {$4400.00} in full. \n\nDespite bringing my account fully current and paying off the entire balance, Barclays held the payment for nearly a week and then immediately reduced my credit limit to {$500.00}. This is not only significantly lower than the previous limit of {$4300.00}, but also lower than my original limit when I opened the account in XXXX, which I believe was {$1200.00}. \n\nMy minimum payment has historically ranged between {$140.00} and {$190.00} per month. I have never had a payment more than 30 days late. \n\nBarclays later sent a letter stating that the reason for the credit limit reduction was due to too high of an account balance and too many accounts with high balances. However, I had just paid off approximately {$11000.00} out of {$15000.00} in total credit card debt across all accounts. It is concerning that I was penalized right after making such a major financial effort to reduce my debt especially when my account was paid in full and Barclays could no longer collect nearly 30 % interest. \n\nThis sudden reduction in credit limit has negatively impacted my credit utilization ratio and harmed my credit score at a time when I am actively working to recover from a difficult financial year. I lost my job in XXXX and had to cash out my XXXX, retirement savings, and stocks just to stay current on bills. Ive worked hard to remain responsible with my obligations and expected fair treatment in return. \n\nI have attached both the letter from Barclays ( dated XX/XX/XXXX ) and a screenshot showing my full payment was made on XX/XX/XXXX. This proves that their decision to reduce my credit limit was not based on an outstanding balance but took place after my account was fully paid off. \n\nAlthough I initially requested that the account be closed out of frustration, I now respectfully ask that : 1. My account be reopened with the previous {$4300.00} credit limit reinstated, with no harm to my credit report.\n\n2. Barclays ' decision and policy regarding credit limit reductions following full or large payments be reviewed for potential discriminatory or predatory behavior.\n\n3. An investigation be conducted into whether this action violates consumer protection principles or fair lending standards.\n\n4. I would also appreciate consideration for a significantly reduced interest rate moving forward, given my long-standing history with Barclays and my recent efforts to pay down my debt. While I understand this may be outside standard procedure, I believe it would be a fair show of good faith and loyalty.\n\nConsumers who act in good faith to repay their debts and restore their financial health should not be punished for doing so. I hope CFPB will review this matter and ensure appropriate oversight and accountability. \n\nThank you for your time and consideration. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX P.S. I apologize if any portion of the attached document appears blurred. It was raining today, and a few water drops got on the paper.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-04-04T18:05:02.000Z","issue":"Trouble using your card","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"656XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"12815189","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BARCLAYS BANK DELAWARE","date_received":"2025-04-04T17:13:09.000Z","state":"MO","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 won't increase or decrease your credit limit"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["An <em>investigation</em> be conducted into whether this action violates consumer protection principles or fair lending standards.\n\n4. I would also appreciate consideration for a significantly reduced interest rate moving forward, given my long-standing history with Barclays and my recent efforts to pay down my debt. While I understand this may be outside standard procedure, I believe it would be a fair <em>show</em> of good <em>faith</em> and loyalty."]},"sort":[11.0584545,"12815189"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17793124","_score":10.518185,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"This is not a duplicate complaint. This submission concerns new and separate violations that occurred after Discover responded to my prior CFPB complaint on XX/XX/XXXX. Following the closure of that complaint, Discover made multiple unauthorized changes to my credit file, including altering the charge-off date twice ( from XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX ), adding new derogatory information, and modifying payment history entriesall without notice, without authorization, and while a federal investigation was ongoing. These changes occurred between XXXX XXXX XXXX and are documented in the screenshots attached to this complaint. Because these new violations did not exist at the time of my previous submission, they could not have been included in any earlier complaint. This filing addresses new misconduct, new reporting inaccuracies, and new evidence that surfaced only this week I am submitting this complaint regarding Discover Bank for ( 1 ) materially inaccurate reporting, ( 2 ) unauthorized changes to my account information during an active investigation, ( 3 ) contradictory and misleading responses, and ( 4 ) violations of the FCRA, Regulation V, and CFPB furnishing requirements.\n\nThis complaint includes new evidence discovered after my initial CFPB submission on XX/XX/XXXX, including Discover altering the charge-off date on my account twice within one week, with no authorization, no notice, and no explanation while simultaneously claiming they can not make changes without my authorization. Their conduct appears intentional and retaliatory. \n\nA screenshot of the XX/XX/XXXX report showing Charge-Off Date : XX/XX/XXXX is attached. My current report now shows Charge-Off Date : XX/XX/XXXX. \n\n1. Background On XX/XX/XXXX, I filed a CFPB complaint after discovering that Discover had been furnishing multiple serious inaccuracies about my account for over two years, including : Reporting a charged-off balance every single month for more than a year Reporting $ XXXX in utilization monthly, despite the account being closed Reporting dates that do not follow the actual account history Reporting a charge-off that did not occur in XXXX Multiple remark code changes Inconsistent and shifting derogatory information These errors have caused severe, ongoing credit damage. \n\nDiscovers XX/XX/XXXX fraud investigation ( unrelated to this complaint ) concluded no fraud, but I made no assertions in this CFPB complaint regarding account ownership or fraud verification. Discovers response mischaracterized my complaint entirely, and they failed to address any of the issues raised. \n\n2. Discovers CFPB Response Material Omissions and Misrepresentations Discovers written response to my complaint : Ignored every actual issue I raised Failed to address the ongoing inaccurate reporting Claimed they can not make changes without authorization Claimed they validated the account, which I did not dispute Provided zero explanation for the reporting inconsistencies Did not address the year-long rolling charge-off reporting Did not explain the $ XXXX monthly utilization Did not explain the dates that contradict my statements and their own records Did not explain why the charge-off date was changed twice in one week Their response appears misleading and incomplete.\n\n3. Unauthorized Furnisher Activity After Filing the CFPB Complaint Despite stating they can not make any changes without my authorization, Discover suddenly made multiple changes to my credit file after submitting their CFPB response, including : A. XX/XX/XXXX ( Screenshot Attached ) : -Report showed Charge-Off Date : XX/XX/XXXX B. XXXX XXXX XXXX : -Discover added new remark codes without notice -Discover altered payment history fields -Discover made changes to the account status C. XX/XX/XXXX : -Charge-Off Date changed to XX/XX/XXXX These actions were done : -Without my authorization -Without a dispute filed directly with the bureau -While Discover claimed they were unable to make changes This is contradictory, deceptive, and indicates potential bad faith conduct.\n\n4. Material Inaccuracy : Discover Is Reporting a False Charge-Off Date Discover has now reported : XXXX XXXX as the charge-off date ( documented screenshot from XX/XX/XXXX ) XXXX XXXX as the charge-off date ( current report as of XX/XX/XXXX ) Neither date is correct, and Discover has not provided any evidence, explanation, or documentation to justify these inconsistencies. \n\nChanging derogatory dates during an active credit investigation constitutes : FCRA 1681s-2 ( a ) Duty to furnish accurate information FCRA 1681s-2 ( b ) Duty to conduct a reasonable investigation Regulation V, 12 CFR 1022.42 Prohibition on materially misleading reporting CFPB Bulletin 2014-01 Prohibition on furnishing information known to be inaccurate 5. Ongoing False Reporting Discover continues to report : -A rolling charged-off balance every month for over a year -Monthly utilization exceeding {$8000.00} on a closed, non-active account -Inaccurate payment history entries -Incorrect derogatory codes -Inconsistent dates of first delinquency -Multiple retroactively updated statuses This is not only inaccurate it artificially depresses my credit score and misrepresents my creditworthiness.\n\n6. Failure to Conduct a Reasonable Investigation Discovers response : -Addressed issues I never raised -Ignored all issues I did raise -Contained no supporting documents -Provided no explanation for altered data -Conflicted with their own actions ( claiming they can not make changes, then making changes ) This is a textbook violation of : FCRA 1681i ( a ) Reasonable reinvestigation requirement FCRA 1681s-2 ( b ) Investigation duties upon notice of a dispute CFPB Bulletin XXXX Requirement to review all relevant information Given the number of inconsistent changes, unsupported updates, and false reporting, I am requesting full CFPB oversight.\n\nDiscover has taken actions that appear to be intentional, retaliatory, and designed to obscure prior inaccurate reporting. Furnishers are prohibited from altering derogatory information during an active investigation especially without consumer authorization.\n\nI request full review, regulatory intervention, and correction of all inaccurate and misleading information.\n\n8. Evidence Attached -Screenshot from XX/XX/XXXX showing : -Charge-Off Date : XX/XX/XXXX -Current report showing Charge-Off Date : XX/XX/XXXX -Screenshots of XXXX XXXX and XXXX alerts showing new derogatory changes made between XX/XX/XXXX -Discovers written CFPB response -Timeline of all changes made after Discover claimed they were unable to make changes","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-25T00:55:57.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"11758","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17793124","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"DISCOVER BANK","date_received":"2025-11-24T23:54:32.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Account information incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Their conduct appears intentional and <em>retaliatory</em>. \n\nA screenshot of the XX/XX/XXXX report showing Charge-Off Date : XX/XX/XXXX is attached. My current report now <em>shows</em> Charge-Off Date : XX/XX/XXXX. \n\n1."]},"sort":[10.518185,"17793124"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13027453","_score":10.262173,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"On XX/XX/XXXX, I filed a cfpb complaint against Reliance First Capital for current and active RESPA violations. After speaking with XXXX of their representatives and being bounced around just to be told they didnt really know what was going on outside of there being an escrow analysis conducted on XX/XX/XXXX that showed an alleged shortage despite the XX/XX/XXXX payment statement showing a credit and couldn't assist me further and put in an email request for a supervisor to call me back but as of XXXX pm, XX/XX/XXXX, I have yet to hear anything back. I also, uploaded proof of payment in the months of XXXX and XXXX of XXXX where Reliance is wrongfully reporting me as delinquent.\n\nI am writing right now to dispute Reliances decision to close my complaint without resolving the substantive issues raised. While Reliance claims my concerns are duplicative or tied to ongoing litigation, the inaccuracies in my mortgage statements and credit reporting represent urgent, ongoing violations of federal consumer protection laws that require immediate regulatory intervention. Below is my rebuttal : 1. Unresolved Inaccuracies in Mortgage Statements * * Reliance has failed to correct XXXX XX/XX/XXXX mortgage statements that conflict with the terms of my * * approved partial claim agreement * * ( attached for reference ). These statements inaccurately inflate my payment obligations, which I believe is a retaliatory tactic to force me into default. I have provided evidence of the approved partial claim terms and the discrepancies in prior complaints, yet Reliance has not addressed this. Action Requested : - Direct Reliance to reconcile all statements with the partial claim agreement. - Investigate whether these errors violate RESPA ( 12 U.S.C. 2605 ) or the CFPAs prohibition on unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts ( 12 U.S.C. 5531 ).\n\n2. Credit Reporting Errors Reliance continues to report an incorrect monthly payment amount to credit bureaus and erroneously lists me as delinquent for XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. These inaccuracies harm my creditworthiness and violate the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ). I have attached : - Copies of credit reports highlighting the errors. - Proof of timely payments for XXXX XXXX ( e.g., bank statements ). Action Requested : - Require Reliance to correct these inaccuracies under FCRA and provide written confirmation of corrections to all credit bureaus. - Refer this matter to the FTC for potential FCRA violations.\n\n3. Reliances Misuse of Litigation as a Shield While Reliance cites ongoing litigation in the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX this does not absolve them of their duty to comply with federal consumer laws. The inaccuracies in billing and credit reporting are separate regulatory violations that persist regardless of litigation. Reliances refusal to address these issues suggests bad faith and an attempt to evade accountability. Action Requested : - Reopen the complaint and demand Reliance substantively respond to the billing and credit reporting issues. - Escalate this matter if Reliance continues to disregard its obligations. \nXXXX. Additional Documentation Attached for your review : - Approved partial claim agreement. \n- Inaccurate XX/XX/XXXX statements vs. correct payment terms. \n- Credit reports with errors highlighted. \n- Proof of payments for XXXX XXXX. \n\nConclusion I urge the CFPB to investigate these unresolved violations and hold Reliance accountable. Their refusal to correct clear inaccuracieswhile using litigation as a pretextharms my financial stability and undermines the purpose of the CFPBs complaint process. Please contact me for further details or documentation. Sincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-04-16T18:56:37.000Z","issue":"Trouble during payment process","sub_product":"FHA mortgage","zip_code":"35022","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13027453","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"RELIANCE FIRST CAPITAL LLC","date_received":"2025-04-16T18:34:36.000Z","state":"AL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Trying to communicate with the company to fix an issue while managing or servicing your loan"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["These statements inaccurately inflate my payment obligations, <em>which</em> I believe is a <em>retaliatory</em> tactic to force me into default. I have provided evidence of the approved partial claim terms and the discrepancies in prior complaints, yet Reliance has not addressed this."]},"sort":[10.262173,"13027453"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16823562","_score":10.019428,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"I am filing this formal complaint against Credit Karma Money and XXXX XXXX, Member FDIC, for systematically denying me access to my own funds following identity theft, retaliatory account termination after I exercised my legal right to record a customer service call, and a pattern of conduct that has left me unable to pay for basic living expenses for nearly two weeks. \nThe central issue in this complaint is Credit Karmas systematic denial of my access to roughly XXXXXXXX XXXX in legitimate funds that belong to me. Any legitimate investigation that I am confident the cfpb will put for will show that for nearly two weeks Credit Karma has held my money XXXX through a series of broken promises, arbitrary barriers, and now their ultimately retaliatory account termination will leave me in a completely unstable financial position that Credit Karma portrays as being a company that wants to empower customers from being in the exact same predicament that they have placed me in due to their retaliatory banking practices. Let it not be lost on the average consumer that Credit Karma has just been the subject of a class action lawsuit for their shady consumer trapping and violating practices. I am not clairvoyant by any means but I can predict with all absolute certainty that Credit Karma and XXXX XXXX  will again be faced with defending their consistent consumer law violating banking practices in a courtroom in the near future. As a victim of identity theft who lost his physical debit card to criminals, I desperately needed replacement card access to pay rent, buy food, and cover transportation costs. Credit Karma explicitly promised to provide this access, then manufactured absolutely no coherent reason to deny it, leaving me in continued severe financial distress and now subsequently closing my account when I started recording my conversations with their customer service agents. \n\nTimeline of Events : I filed police report number XXXX on XX/XX/year> regarding the theft of my bank card and mobile access to my account the result in roughly XXXXXXXX XXXX of unauthorized transactions. \nOn XX/XX/year>, after regaining access to my phone, I discovered the unauthorized transactions and immediately contacted Credit Karmas fraud department. I successfully verified my identity using my government-issued identification and filed a fraud dispute. The Credit Karma representative explicitly promised to issue me a replacement virtual debit card after identity verification was complete so I could access my remaining funds while the fraud investigation proceeded. I acknowledge that Credit Karma appropriately issued provisional credit of {$2500.00} for the fraudulent transactions. \nBeginning XX/XX/year>, Credit Karma began arbitrarily rejecting the same government-issued identification that had been accepted less than XXXX XXXX  earlier. Credit Karma never provided any explanation for why my identification was suddenly unacceptable or what steps I could take to resolve this issue and hamstringing my ability to add pertinent information in the dispute claim process. More importantly, Credit Karma never issued the promised virtual debit card, leaving me with no means to access my account.\n\nThe promise of a replacement virtual debit card was not a minor courtesy but a critical necessity. My physical debit card had been stolen by criminals. Without any debit card, physical or virtual, I had no way to access my own money as Credit Karma froze my account in a manner that kept me from even transferring money out of my account. Credit Karma acknowledged this need by promising the virtual card. When they failed to deliver on that promise, they effectively froze my ability to participate in the economy while holding {$1900.00} of my money. \nFrom XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/year>, I made approximately XXXX to XXXX phone calls to Credit Karmas customer service line at ( XXXX ) XXXX attempting to obtain access to my funds. My phone records document these calls. Each and every call failed to result in the assistance I needed. During this period, Credit Karma customer service representatives hung up on me at least three to four separate times when I attempted to request explanations, seek supervisor escalation, or inquire about accessing my money. In these calls credit karmas representatives prematurely terminating the calls with a level of nonchalance that gave me great indication that this is common practice and not happenstance occurrence. \nOn or about XX/XX/year>, after a week of being denied access to my money, Credit Karma finally allowed me access to {$750.00} from my account by way of instant transfers. According to Credit Karmas own terms and agreements, customers are permitted to make instant transfers of {$750.00} per day yet I was denied the luxury of being treated like the average customer. Despite this stated policy, I was only allowed to make this transfer during the entire eleven-day period, leaving me unable to access the remaining {$1900.00} in my account for basic living expenses. I was told that I would not be given proper access to my account while they were investigating the disputed charges however credit karma issued a letter sent to my home address notifying me that they concluded their investigation on the XXXX of XXXX however my account privileges remained in this frozen state. \nOn XX/XX/year>, at XXXX XXXX, I spoke with a Credit Karma Money supervisor during a call that lasted XXXX minutes according to my phone records. The supervisors behavior during this call became increasingly unprofessional and hostile. Due to the unprofessional conduct and my need to document the continued mistreatment I was experiencing for any future litigation, I informed the supervisor that I had begun recording our conversation for my records. Oregon is a one-party consent state where recording telephone conversations to which one is a party is entirely legal and within my legal rights. However, this was enough to push an already unprofessional representative over the edge and at this point yet another phone call ended premature to my banking services being restored. On XX/XX/year>, just roughly XXXX XXXX  after the recorded call, I received an email from Credit Karma Money and XXXX XXXX  informing me that they were terminating my banking relationship clearly as retaliation. The email stated that they were unable to serve my financial needs at this time and no further explanation was given however apparently to a company that has the reputation that credit karma has this is apparently enough of a explanation for them. They further notified me that my account would be closed within XXXX to XXXX business days. As credit karma was aware I was already put in a desperate financial situation and credit karma wanted to exacerbate that situation to much further extent. The email further stated that my account and debit card had been locked, that no further withdrawal requests would be honored. \nCredit Karmas retaliatory account termination has created yet another barrier to accessing my own money. According to their termination email, I must now wait seven to ten business days after another 7-10 business days to receive my funds via a mailed check. This means that even though my funds are sitting in Credit Karmas possession right now, they are forcing me to wait additional days or weeks before I can access money that rightfully belongs to me. This additional delay compounds the financial hardship I have already suffered exponentially leading me into debt that would not occur had I not have been denied access to my finances for nearly two weeks.\n\nHad Credit Karma simply issued the virtual debit card they promised on XX/XX/year>, I would have had immediate access to my funds throughout this period. Instead, their broken promise, arbitrary barriers, and retaliatory account closure have created a situation where I may go three to four weeks without being able to access my own money for rent, food, and other necessities.\n\nCredit Karmas conduct demonstrates a clear pattern of creating and maintaining barriers to my accessing my own funds. First, they promised a virtual debit card and then arbitrarily rejected my identification without explanation. Second, they limited my instant transfers to a single {$750.00} transaction despite their terms stating I could make such transfers daily. Third, they had representatives hang up on me repeatedly when I sought help through the entire process. Fourth, they terminated my account in apparent retaliation for recording a call. At every turn, Credit Karma has found new ways to prevent me from accessing funds that belong to me.\n\nThe harm I have suffered goes beyond mere inconvenience. For nearly two weeks, I have been unable to access {$1900.00} in my own funds needed for basic survival. I have struggled to pay rent, buy groceries, purchase gasoline for transportation, and cover other essential expenses. And the financial distress caused by Credit Karmas denial of access to my own money that has been severe and ongoing is to be even more ongoing and even more severe. \nThe emotional toll has been equally significant. As a victim of identity theft, I had already experienced trauma from being victimized by criminals. When I turned to my financial institution for help, I expected assistance and support. Instead, I received broken promises, arbitrary denials, representatives hanging up on me, and ultimately retaliatory account termination. I have been victimized twice : first by criminals who stole my property and funds, and second by my own financial institution that has denied me access to my remaining money. \nCredit Karmas actions have caused me to lose trust in financial institutions and have created anxiety about my ability to meet basic financial obligations. The stress of not being able to access my own money for weeks has affected my health, my relationships, and my ability to function normally in daily life.\n\nThe Relief I am Requesting : I request that your agency investigate Credit Karma Money and XXXX XXXX  for the systematic denial of access to my funds and the other conduct described in this complaint. I request that Credit Karma be ordered to immediately transfer my full account balance of {$1900.00} to another financial institution of my choosing via same-day electronic transfer rather than forcing me to wait an additional seven to ten business days. I request that Credit Karma be required to provide a detailed written explanation for why they promised to issue a virtual debit card and then failed to do so, and why they limited my instant transfers to a single occurrence despite their terms allowing daily transfers. I request that appropriate regulatory action and penalties be taken against Credit Karma for systematically denying a fraud victim access to his own funds. I request that Credit Karma be required to implement policies ensuring that fraud victims have reasonable access to their accounts and that promises made to such victims are honored. And finally I would like credit karma to provide me with the transcripts from my conversations with their representatives and any internal communications regarding my account for the purpose of potential future litigation. \nSupporting Documentation Available : I can provide police report number XXXX filed XX/XX/year>. I can provide complete phone call logs from my mobile device showing approximately XXXX to XXXX calls to ( XXXX ) XXXX between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/year>, including the XX/XX/year> call at XXXX XXXX lasting XXXX minutes. I can provide screenshots from the Credit Karma Money application showing account frozen warnings and the current balance of {$1900.00}. I can provide the complete account termination email from Credit Karma Money and XXXX XXXX  dated XX/XX/year>. I can provide documentation showing that Credit Karma only allowed me to make one {$750.00} instant transfer despite terms allowing daily transfers. I can provide any other documentation requested to support this investigation. \nThis matter requires urgent attention to be investigated as Credit Karma has committed Potential Violations of Banking Laws, Regulations, and Guidelines : The conduct described in this complaint may constitute violations of the following federal banking laws, regulations, guidelines, and supervisory expectations : Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts or Practices under the Consumer Financial Protection Act ( 12 U.S.C. 5531 and 12 CFR 1002.3 ). Credit Karma made a material misrepresentation by promising to issue a virtual debit card to provide account access and then failing to deliver on that promise without explanation. Credit Karma took unreasonable advantage of my status as an identity theft victim who had lost his physical debit card by denying the promised replacement access while holding my funds. Credit Karma caused substantial injury by denying me access to {$1900.00} in my own funds for nearly two weeks, with no countervailing benefit to consumers or competition justifying this injury.\n\nViolation of the Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing under common law principles applicable to banking relationships. Banks owe customers a duty to deal with them in good faith, which includes honesty in fact and observance of reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing. Making explicit promises to provide account access to a fraud victim and then denying that access through manufactured barriers violates this fundamental duty. \n\nRetaliatory Actions Against Consumers Exercising Legal Rights. The termination of my account one day after I exercised my legal right to record a telephone conversation in a one-party consent state constitutes retaliation designed to punish me for attempting to document poor service. Such retaliation has a chilling effect on consumer rights and undermines the entire consumer protection framework.\n\nBreach of Account Terms and Conditions. Credit Karmas limitation of instant transfers to a single {$750.00} transaction despite account terms stating customers may make such transfers daily constitutes a failure to honor the terms of the banking relationship and may constitute a breach of contract.\n\nFailure to Provide Reasonable Customer Service Standards expected of FDIC-insured institutions. The pattern of representatives hanging up on me at least three to four times while I was seeking legitimate assistance regarding access to my own funds demonstrates systematic failures in customer service that fall below the standards expected of regulated financial institutions. \n\nFailure to Meet Safety and Soundness Standards under 12 U.S.C. 1831p-1 and 12 CFR Part 364. The pattern of conduct suggests potential failures in compliance management systems, internal controls, and operational policies, particularly regarding fair treatment of fraud victims and consistent application of access procedures. \n\nXXXX XXXX on XXXX in an XXXX Banking XXXX. Financial institutions should have risk-based authentication procedures that are consistent, reasonable, and explainable. \n\nAccepting identification for fraud dispute purposes while simultaneously denying the same identification for card issuance purposes without explanation suggests inconsistent and potentially unreasonable application of authentication standards. \n\nCustomer Identification Program requirements under 31 CFR 1020.220. Customer identification programs should have reasonable procedures for verifying customer identity. The acceptance and subsequent rejection of identical identification without explanation raises questions about whether the procedures are reasonable or consistently applied.\n\nFDIC Consumer Compliance Examination Manual expectations regarding fair treatment of consumers. The FDIC expects banks to have effective compliance management systems that ensure fair treatment of consumers, particularly vulnerable consumers such as fraud victims. The systematic denial of access to my funds suggests potential deficiencies in compliance management and consumer protection practices","date_sent_to_company":"2025-10-27T01:50:30.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"986XX","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"16823562","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Credit Karma, LLC","date_received":"2025-10-27T00:16:51.000Z","state":"WA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Deposits and withdrawals"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Any legitimate <em>investigation</em> that I am confident the cfpb will put for will <em>show</em> that for nearly two weeks Credit Karma has held my money XXXX through a series of broken promises, arbitrary barriers, and now their ultimately <em>retaliatory</em> account termination will leave me in a completely unstable financial position that Credit Karma portrays as being a company that wants to empower customers from being in the exact same predicament that they have placed me in due to their <em>retaliatory</em> banking practices"]},"sort":[10.019428,"16823562"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13895921","_score":10.009075,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"I am filing this complaint against TransUnion for their continued reporting of a fraudulent and unverifiable account from XXXX XXXX, which XXXX has already removed after confirming it could not be verified. It is not only unreasonable but also legally questionable for TransUnion to claim that this same account is somehow verifiable when the original furnisher has yet to provide any legally sufficient documentation, and another major bureau has already confirmed it should not exist on my credit report.\n\nLet me be very clear : there is no possible way this debt could have been verified, because no such debt exists. I do not owe XXXX XXXX. In fact, if anything, they owe mefor the damage caused by their false reporting as well as for not returning my security deposit and for TransUnions continued negligence in handling my disputes. Ive been disputing this account for over a year, and yet TransUnion continues to pull the same sham investigations and stalling tactics, delaying responses until the last possible day, only to mark the account as verified again, without explanation or evidence uploaded to the CFPB portal. This is not a reinvestigation under the lawits a bad-faith attempt to sidestep accountability.\n\nPer the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) : 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) requires a reasonable reinvestigation when a consumer disputes an account. There is nothing reasonable about re-verifying an account without proof and despite XXXX removing it. \n15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) mandates that consumer reporting agencies maintain maximum possible accuracy. One bureau has reached opposite conclusionsso accuracy clearly isnt being ensured.\n\n15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 2 ) ( A ) requires all relevant information to be passed to the furnisher during an investigation. If that were truly done, TransUnion wouldve received the same lack of proof that I did.\n\n15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ) requires that all documentation used in the reinvestigation be provided to the consumer. I have not received a single legally binding documentonly a move-out statement, which is woefully insufficient under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ).\n\nI am no longer tolerating this. If TransUnion refuses to remove this account immediately or responds with yet another vague and dismissive verified status, I will be preparing to take full legal action. I will pursue civil penalties for violations of both the FCRA and FDCPA, including failure to conduct a reasonable investigation, negligent misreporting, and continued reporting of inaccurate and unverifiable information. for them to take 60 days and to avoid providing me with what I ask in this portal shows their complete negligence. It is not only unfair. Its unjust and I encourage the CFPB to look into Trans Unions investigation just like they did with XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX needs to deleted permanently from my account and I have attached XXXX this response to my consumer financial protection bureau, so TransUnion please explain your negligence on why and how in the world did you verify this foolishness on my report and Im extremely passionate because I do not let me say it again do not owe this collection agency! Take a look at their reviews there are so many tenants that had a unfit unit that are battling the same exact thing. Im battling with receiving their security deposit back! All of this is retaliatory because of me filing a complaint with my local cities Code enforcement for my unit these apartments being advised by Code enforcement that they would be fine because they were having me in deplorable living conditions and me not renewing my! I would like to add I fully paid for movers to move my things out of this place not only did I pay movers and gave them almost 3 months notice that I would not dare renew my lease with them. They tried to report bogus items on the moveout statement that they genetically typed up that I didnt even own in that apartment. Ive been holding on to my video of me in that apartment office that shows the time I reported the move out statement to see if these investigations go legitimately and clearly they havent and thats why Im so prepared to sue with my final request for deletion! I also have documentation on where the movers went in the location to remove every item out of that apartment that was a left spotless! Please get it together because this is my very last time asking this to be removed before legal action is taken. This is absolutely ridiculous and I wish I could say more on this platform because I am so disgusted, but I have to remain professional get this off of my credit immediately! Dont mail me anything. Talk to me on the consumer financial protection bureaus platformif youre providing a legal and proper investigation just like XXXX did they acknowledged their incorrections and explained their full process please dont overlook the uploaded attachment that they deleted this foolishness off of my credit! Even if they did provide you with any documentation which I highly highly doubt because none exist Im telling you now they were forged and fraudulent and thats why Im so passionate! Ive been keeping this video in my back pocket because I already know what type of non-integrity having people I was dealing with when I decided not to stay in the unit! But there comes a time where enough is enough do the right thing and dont take 60 days after youve already taken almost 400 days of me battling this with you in particular Trans Union !","date_sent_to_company":"2025-06-04T12:53:36.000Z","issue":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","sub_product":"Rental debt","zip_code":"32244","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13895921","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-06-04T12:24:59.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Debt is not yours"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Ive been disputing this account for over a year, and yet TransUnion continues to pull the same sham <em>investigations</em> and stalling tactics, delaying responses until the last possible day, only to mark the account as verified again, without explanation or evidence uploaded to the CFPB portal. This is not a reinvestigation under the lawits a bad-<em>faith</em> attempt to sidestep accountability."]},"sort":[10.009075,"13895921"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"20844218","_score":9.533828,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"To : Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) * * * * Re : Rebuttal to Cash App Response ( Complaint No. XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Date : XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX SUBJECT : FORMAL REJECTION OF PROVIDER RESPONSE SYSTEMIC VIOLATIONS OF BLOCK , INC . CONSENT ORDER, DECEPTIVE ACCOUNTING, AND PUNITIVE RETALIATION * * I am formally rejecting the response provided by Cash App ( Block , Inc. ) on XX/XX/XXXX. Their investigation is a bad-faith fabrication that ignores documented financial discrepancies. My evidence, spanning XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX, proves that Cash App is withholding merchant-authorized funds and taking unauthorized payments in direct violation of the * * Block , Inc . Consent Order. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX I. SPOLIATION OF RECORDS : THE MISSING XX/XX/XXXX STATEMENT * * Cash App has failed to provide my * * XX/XX/XXXX Afterpay Statement * *, which is the \" missing link '' in this dispute. * * * The \" Vanishing '' Documentation : * * My XX/XX/XXXX statement begins with a * * {$40.00} Previous Balance * *. However, my primary Cash App activity log shows these XXXX purchases as * * '' Canceled. \" * * * * * The Accounting XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  There is no legal or logical way for an order to be \" Canceled '' on a Cash App ledger while simultaneously carrying over as a \" Debt '' on an Afterpay statement. If the orders were canceled, the balance must be {$0.00}. * * * Concealed Refunds : * * I have merchant evidence of refunds issued in * * XX/XX/XXXX * * that were sent to XXXX. By withholding the XXXX statement, Cash App is hiding the fact that these refunds should have zeroed out my balance before XXXX even began. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX II. DOCUMENTED \" REFUND SKIMMING '' & SHORTFALL AUDIT * * My merchant confirmation emails show the exact amounts authorized for return, but Cash App \" decided '' to send back significantly less, pocketing the difference. * * The following list represents the documented shortfalls : * * XXXX. * * XXXX  XXXX ( Loan ID : XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Merchant Refund Authorized : * * {$85.00} * * * Cash App Applied : * * {$42.00} * * * * * XXXX  Withheld by Cash App : {$42.00} * * * * Note : My XX/XX/XXXX statement shows a - {$42.00} entry for XXXX  XXXX that was never returned to my bank, despite the full refund. * 2. * * XXXX  ( Loan ID : XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Merchant Refund Authorized : * * {$110.00} * * * Cash App Applied : * * {$50.00} * * * * * XXXX Withheld by Cash App : {$67.00} * * XXXX. * * XXXX ( Loan ID : XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Merchant Refund Authorized : * * {$86.00} * * * Cash App Applied : * * {$43.00} * * * * * XXXX  Withheld by Cash App : {$43.00} * * XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ( Loan ID : XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Merchant Refund Authorized : * * {$40.00} * * * Cash App Applied : * * {$0.00} * * * * * XXXX  Withheld by Cash App : {$39.00} * * XXXX. * * Miscellaneous Order ( Loan ID : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Merchant Refund Authorized : * * {$24.00} * * * Cash App Applied : * * {$6.00} * * * * * XXXX  Withheld by Cash App : {$18.00} * * XXXX. * * Miscellaneous Order ( Loan ID : XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Merchant Refund Authorized : * * {$32.00} * * * Cash App Applied : * * {$8.00} * * * * * XXXX  Withheld by Cash App : {$24.00} * * XXXX. * * Order XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Merchant confirms a * * Full Refund * *, yet Cash App continues to charge me daily for this order. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX. PUNITIVE RETALIATION : THE - {$400.00} BALANCE * * After I exercised my legal right to file a dispute with my bank to recover these missing funds, Cash App engaged in * * retaliatory accounting. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  The Retaliatory Charge : * * Cash App forced my account into a * * - {$400.00} negative balance. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Intent : * * This is a punitive measure used to block my access to my own funds and pressure me into dropping a legitimate federal complaint. This is a direct violation of the Consumer Financial Protection Acts prohibition on unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices ( UDAAP ). XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  IV. SYSTEMIC FAILURE OF THE XX/XX/XXXX STATEMENT * * My XX/XX/XXXX statement proves I was paying for \" balances '' that should have been covered by the missing XXXX refunds : XXXX XXXX XXXX Loan XXXX Payment XXXX XXXX XXXX On XX/XX/XXXX, a payment of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX was applied to XXXX XXXX Loan XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Cash Over-Payment : * * In XXXX, I made * * {$160.00} in total payments * * toward * * {$250.00} in new purchases * *. Despite this high-volume repayment, Cash App 's refusal to apply merchant refunds correctly resulted in the manufacture of \" XXXX XXXX '' amounts on my credit recordXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  V. DEMAND FOR COMPENSATORY RELIEF AND DAMAGES * * I demand the following immediate actions : 1. * * Immediate Credit : * * Return of the * * $ XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX in identified missing and skimmed refunds. 2. * * Removal of Retaliation : * * Wipe the retaliatory * * - {$400.00} balance * * caused by my bank dispute. 3. * * Credit Correction : * * Removal of all late fees and \" Past Due '' marks from my internal and external credit records ( specifically the manufactured {$17.00} past-due amount from XXXX ). 4. * * Production of Records : * * Cash App must provide the missing XX/XX/XXXX XXXX statement. 5. * * Compensatory Damages for Pain and Suffering : * * The months of financial obstruction, the disappearance of account records, and the constant unauthorized daily attempts to take money from my bank have caused * * severe emotional distress, anxiety, and financial hardship. * * I request that the CFPB hold Block , Inc. accountable for the mental and financial anguish caused by their failure to adhere to the standing Consent Order","date_sent_to_company":"2026-04-01T14:24:39.000Z","issue":"Unauthorized transactions or other transaction problem","sub_product":"Mobile or digital wallet","zip_code":"42240","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"20844218","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Block, Inc.","date_received":"2026-04-01T14:20:01.000Z","state":"KY","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Their <em>investigation</em> is a bad-<em>faith</em> fabrication that ignores documented financial discrepancies. My evidence, spanning XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX, proves that Cash App is withholding merchant-authorized funds and taking unauthorized payments in direct violation of the * * Block , Inc . Consent Order. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX I."]},"sort":[9.533828,"20844218"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16863466","_score":9.491221,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"TRIPLE EMERGENCY - EXPEDITED REVIEW REQUESTED FEDERAL CONTRACTOR WITH SECRET CLEARANCE CONTINUOUS EVALUATION ( CE ) PROGRAM - ACTIVE MONITORING HOUSING CLOSING DEADLINE : XX/XX/XXXX ( 10 WEEKS ) EMPLOYMENT TERMINATION IMMINENT IF CLEARANCE LOST SYSTEMATIC ILLEGAL RETALIATION UNDER FCRA DOCUMENTED FICO SCORE DAMAGE - GRAPH ATTACHED FACING HOMELESSNESS WITH CHILD - IMMEDIATE INTERVENTION REQUIRED CLEARANCE EMERGENCY : I hold a Secret security clearance as a federal contractor I am enrolled in Continuous Evaluation ( CE ) program My credit reports are being ACTIVELY MONITORED in real-time by Department of Defense security systems Chase 's FALSE credit reporting is appearing in active security monitoring RIGHT NOW A clearance review could trigger ANY DAY based on these false reports Loss of clearance = IMMEDIATE TERMINATION of federal employment This is not speculative- this is how CE program works CRITICAL EVIDENCE : Chase reported XXXX XXXX as \" OK/good standing '' on XX/XX/XXXX I made up ALL missed payments in XX/XX/XXXX ( when I was informed I missed ) I made XXXX 's regular payment ON TIME ( XX/XX/XXXX ) Chase NEVER charged any late fees for XXXX XX/XX/XXXX : I challenged Chase 's Credit Bureau Reporting Department XX/XX/XXXX XXXX Chase RETALIATED by changing Feb-Sept to \" 30-60 days late '' across all three bureaus - BEFORE I filed any formal disputes XX/XX/XXXX : Chase SUPERVISOR reviewed my account and stated : \" I do not see any missed or late payments for XXXXthis year '' and \" no late fees, so those months should not be reported as late to the credit bureaus '' XX/XX/XXXX : Supervisor helped me access my account to gather documents to \" show them '' ( the credit bureaus ) XX/XX/XXXX : I filed formal disputes with all three credit bureaus based on supervisor 's confirmation Chase reported XXXX as late despite THREE payments totaling {$180.00} in that month, including the regular on-time payment RECORDED SUPERVISOR CALL ( XX/XX/XXXX ) proves Chase 's reporting is false and retaliatory. Chase must produce this recording. \n\n\nNATURE OF COMPLAINT : I am filing an EMERGENCY complaint regarding systematic illegal furnisher retaliation by JPMorgan Chase Bank , N.A . in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ).\n\nChase engaged in willful, coordinated retaliation by retroactively changing credit reporting across ALL THREE credit bureaus ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) from \" good standing '' to \" 30-60 days late '' ONLY AFTER I challenged their reporting on XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nChase changed their reporting BEFORE I filed any formal disputes with credit bureaus, proving this was retaliation for being challenged, not the result of any investigation.\n\nTwo days after Chase made these retaliatory changes, Chase 's own SUPERVISOR confirmed on a recorded call that there were \" no missed or late payments for XXXX '' and that without late fees, the months \" should not be reported as late to the credit bureaus. '' TRIPLE EMERGENCY - IMMEDIATE CFPB INTERVENTION REQUIRED EMERGENCY # XXXX : SECRET CLEARANCE JEOPARDY I am a XXXX XXXX holding a SECRET SECURITY CLEARANCE. This clearance is required for my employment and allows me to access classified information and work on sensitive government projects. \n\nI am currently enrolled in the CONTINUOUS EVALUATION ( CE ) PROGRAM administered by the Department of Defense. This program means : My credit reports are being ACTIVELY MONITORED in real-time by DoD security systems The monitoring is AUTOMATED and CONTINUOUS Credit issues trigger AUTOMATIC FLAGS in the security system These flags can trigger a clearance review at ANY TIME without warning Reviews can happen within DAYS of negative credit reporting appearing Chase 's false credit reporting is appearing in this active security monitoring system RIGHT NOW. The false late payment reports are being flagged as potential financial problems.\n\nWHAT THIS MEANS : A clearance review could be triggered ANY DAY. When that happens : I will be questioned about the \" late payments '' I will have to explain the credit issues The reviewing authority sees \" 60 days late '' across multiple months Even with my explanation, the volume of negative marks raises red flags Clearance can be suspended during review Suspension = immediate removal from classified work Removal from classified work = CONTRACT TERMINATION This is not \" might happen '' - this is how the CE program works If I lose my clearance : My federal contract employment ends IMMEDIATELY I can not work on classified projects My employer can not keep me without clearance I lose my income within days I can not get another federal contractor job without clearance Rebuilding clearance takes MONTHS even after credit is corrected This is URGENT because : The false reporting is in DoD systems NOW A review could trigger tomorrow or next week Once clearance review starts, damage is done I need Chase 's false reporting corrected BEFORE review triggers EMERGENCY # 2 : HOUSING JEOPARDY I am purchasing the home where my son and I currently live. Closing is scheduled for XX/XX/XXXX - approximately 10 weeks from now. \n\nChase 's illegal retaliation and the resulting credit score damage are directly threatening my mortgage approval. My lender has raised concerns about the credit issues. \n\nIf this purchase fails due to Chase 's illegal conduct : My child and I will be HOMELESS in XX/XX/XXXX We can not afford to rent in our area ( rental costs exceed mortgage payments ) My child will lose stability and security during a critical time I will lose the opportunity to build equity and financial security This is not theoretical- I have a closing deadline in approximately 10 weeks.\n\nEMERGENCY # 3 : EMPLOYMENT JEOPARDY Between clearance loss and housing loss, my ability to maintain stable employment is at risk : Loss of clearance = immediate job termination Loss of housing = instability that makes job search difficult Both together = catastrophic situation for me and my child This is a TRIPLE EMERGENCY where each component threatens the others : Can't keep job without clearance Can't keep house without income Can't get new clearance without stable housing/employment All three are interconnected and ALL are threatened by Chase 's false reporting I need URGENT/EXPEDITED review and immediate CFPB intervention before the January deadline and before a clearance review is triggered.\n\nDOCUMENTED EVIDENCE I POSSESS I have comprehensive documentation proving Chase 's illegal retaliation : Official credit reports from ALL THREE bureaus dated XX/XX/XXXX, showing Chase reported XXXX XXXX as \" OK/good standing/current '' Official credit reports from ALL THREE bureaus from XX/XX/XXXX showing Chase changed XXXX XXXX to \" 60 days late '' after I challenged them FICO Score 8 graph showing dramatic credit score drop in XX/XX/XXXX coinciding exactly with Chase 's retaliatory reporting changes Bank statements proving I made XXXX 's regular payment ON TIME ( XX/XX/XXXX, {$46.00} ) plus TWO makeup payments ( XX/XX/XXXX, {$92.00} and XX/XX/XXXX, {$46.00} ) - total {$180.00} in XXXX alone Credit monitoring alerts showing when Chase changed reporting ( XX/XX/XXXX XXXX RECORDED CALL with Chase SUPERVISOR ( XX/XX/XXXX ) where supervisor stated : \" I do not see any missed or late payments for XXXXthis year '' \" We only report late payments if we charge a late fee '' \" I do not see any late fees charged to your account '' \" No late fees, so those months should not be reported as late to the credit bureaus '' Helped me access my online account after a multiple-months long lockout Told me to gather documents to \" show them '' ( encouraging me to dispute with credit bureaus ) Timeline documentation showing I scheduled makeup payments IMMEDIATELY when informed of missed months ( good faith conduct ) Evidence showing I was locked out of my online account for approximately 9 months ( XXXX XXXX ), preventing me from monitoring my account Documentation of Secret clearance and Continuous Evaluation enrollment COMPLETE TIMELINE OF EVENTS I am providing the complete, accurate timeline to show my good faith conduct throughout and Chase 's pattern of retaliation : XXXX XXXX - INITIAL MISSED PAYMENTS : I acknowledge that I missed payments for XXXX, XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX. \nHowever, the critical facts are : I was locked out of my Chase online account during this period ( system said account \" doesn't exist '' when I tried to log in ) I was unable to view statements or monitor my account After I spoke with Chase customer service during this period, representatives repeatedly told me my account was \" current '' and \" in good standing '' Chase was reporting to all three credit bureaus that these months were \" OK '' and in \" good standing '' ( see XX/XX/XXXX credit reports below ) Chase NEVER charged any late fees for these months IMPORTANT : I made up ALL of these missed payments in XX/XX/XXXX as soon as I was informed of them. I scheduled each makeup payment IMMEDIATELY during the same phone call when I learned about the missed month. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX - CHASE REPORTS ALL MONTHS AS \" GOOD STANDING '' : I obtained official credit reports from all three credit bureaus. These reports are CRITICAL EVIDENCE : XXXX  ( Report dated XX/XX/XXXX ) : Chase reported XXXX XXXX as \" OK '' - showing no missed payments XXXX  ( Report from XXXX ) XXXX Chase reported XXXX XXXX as \" OK/Current '' - showing no missed payments XXXX  ( Report dated XX/XX/XXXX ) XXXX Chase showed NO late payment marks for XXXX SIGNIFICANCE : As of XX/XX/XXXX, Chase was telling all three credit bureaus that my account was in good standing with no missed payments for XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX. This was consistent with what Chase 's customer service had told me on the phone. \n\nWhether this XXXX reporting was accurate or not, Chase CAN NOT change it retroactively after I challenge them - that is illegal retaliation under FCRA. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX - REGULAR XXXX PAYMENT MADE ON TIME : I made my regular monthly payment for XXXX : {$46.00} payment posted to Chase account. This payment was ON TIME. \n\nBank statement attached proving this payment. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX - DISCOVERED XXXX LATE REPORTING : I monitor my credit reports regularly due to my upcoming mortgage application AND my security clearance Continuous Evaluation. My credit monitoring alerted me that Chase had begun reporting XXXX and XXXX as late payments. \n\nI was confused because : XX/XX/XXXX credit reports showed everything as \" OK '' Chase reps had told me account was current I had been making payments I immediately called Chase customer service. During this call : This was the FIRST TIME Chase mentioned the XXXX missed payment I IMMEDIATELY scheduled a makeup payment during that same phone call I was told my account would be in \" good standing '' once the payment was made The representative suggested I contact the Credit Bureau Reporting Department ACTION TAKEN : I scheduled makeup payment immediately - demonstrating good faith. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX - MAKEUP PAYMENT POSTED : {$92.00} payment posted to Chase account. This payment was intended to make up the missed XXXX and XXXX payments. \n\nBank statement attached proving this payment. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX - CHASE CALLED ABOUT OUTSTANDING BALANCE : Chase called ME regarding an outstanding balance. During this call : Chase representative mentioned additional payment issues I asked why I wasn't informed about these issues on previous calls Representative had no answer I IMMEDIATELY scheduled additional payment ( s ) during that same phone call I asked multiple times to confirm my account would be in \" good standing '' Representative confirmed it would be Representative advised me to call Credit Bureau Reporting Department ACTION TAKEN : I again scheduled payment ( s ) immediately when informed - demonstrating continued good faith. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX - ADDITIONAL MAKEUP PAYMENT POSTED : {$46.00} payment posted to Chase account. This was makeup for XXXX ( which I had just learned about ). \n\nBank statement attached proving this payment. \n\nTOTAL XXXX PAYMENTS : {$180.00} ( {$46.00} + {$92.00} + {$46.00} ) across THREE separate payments XX/XX/XXXX - CALLED CHASE CREDIT BUREAU REPORTING DEPARTMENT : After making all makeup payments and ensuring my account was current, I called Chase 's Credit Bureau Reporting Department to understand why : XXXX and XXXX were being reported as late When these would be corrected since I had made makeup payments This call was EXTREMELY DIFFICULT : Regular customer service representatives did NOT want to transfer me I was told to call the credit bureaus directly instead I had to insist multiple times Eventually reached Credit Bureau Reporting Department During this call with Credit Bureau Reporting : The representative would not provide clear answers I mentioned I was considering disputing with the credit bureaus I asked for an investigation Representative kept asking if I thought there was \" fraud '' or an \" error '' I stated : \" I think there is an error '' Representative did not agree with me I did not get resolution or meaningful assistance SIGNIFICANCE : I challenged Chase 's credit reporting on XX/XX/XXXX. I mentioned disputing. I made it clear I believed their reporting was inaccurate. \n\nNOTE : I had NOT yet filed any formal disputes with XXXX, XXXX, or XXXX  at this point. I was simply challenging Chase directly. \n\n\nXX/XX/XXXX - CHASE 'S ILLEGAL RETALIATION : My credit monitoring alerted me that Chase had made significant changes to their credit bureau reporting. \n\nI checked my credit reports and discovered : BEFORE ( XX/XX/XXXX ) : XXXX XXXX : All reported as \" OK/good standing '' AFTER ( XX/XX/XXXX ) : XXXX XXXX : ALL NOW reported as \" 60 days late '' This change occurred across ALL THREE credit bureaus simultaneously : Equifax : XXXX now showing as XXXX days late TransUnion : XXXX now showing as missed payments Experian : XXXX now showing as XXXX days late TIMING IS CRITICAL : XX/XX/XXXX : I challenged Chase and mentioned disputing 19 days later XX/XX/XXXX : Chase changed reporting across all three bureaus I had NOT filed any formal disputes with credit bureaus yet. Chase made these changes in response to my XX/XX/XXXX phone call where I challenged them - NOT in response to any consumer dispute investigation under FCRA. \n\nThis is textbook illegal retaliation : making credit reporting worse after a consumer challenges you. \n\nADDITIONAL PROOF OF RETALIATION : Chase reported XX/XX/XXXX as late, despite : XX/XX/XXXX : Regular payment made ON TIME ( {$46.00} ) XX/XX/XXXX : Additional payment ( {$92.00} ) XX/XX/XXXX : Additional payment ( {$46.00} ) TOTAL : {$180.00} paid in XXXX How can Chase claim XXXX was \" 60 days late '' when I made THREE payments totaling {$180.00} in that month, including the regular on-time payment? \n\nThis proves Chase 's reporting is false and retaliatory, not corrective. \n\nIMMEDIATE IMPACT ON CLEARANCE : These false reports entered my Continuous Evaluation monitoring on XX/XX/XXXX. \nMy security file now shows multiple \" 60 days late '' marks across three bureaus.\n\nThis is exactly the type of financial issue that triggers clearance reviews. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX - SUPERVISOR CALL ( RECORDED ) : Two days after Chase made these retaliatory changes, I called Chase again to speak with the Credit Bureau Reporting Department.\n\nThe conversation was similar to XX/XX/XXXX- I was getting nowhere. \n\nI requested to speak with a SUPERVISOR. \n\nA CHASE SUPERVISOR came on the line. This call was RECORDED by Chase ( as all their calls are ). Chase must produce this recording as it proves everything I am stating.\n\nTHE SUPERVISOR 'S STATEMENTS ( all on recorded call ) : STATEMENT # 1 - NO MISSED OR LATE PAYMENTS : The supervisor reviewed my account in Chase 's system and told me : \" I do not see any missed or late payments for XXXX/this year '' She specifically said \" for XXXX '' and \" this year '' - indicating she had reviewed my entire payment history for XXXX. \n\nSIGNIFICANCE : This was TWO DAYS after Chase had reported XXXX as 60 days late to all three credit bureaus. Yet Chase 's own supervisor, looking at Chase 's own internal records, said she saw NO missed or late payments for XXXX. \n\nWHY THE SUPERVISOR WAS CORRECT : I had made up XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX in XXXX I had made regular payments for XXXX I had made THREE payments in XXXX ( including on-time regular payment ) The account was current with no outstanding late payments STATEMENT # 2 - CHASE 'S POLICY ON LATE REPORTING : The supervisor explained Chase 's official policy regarding when they report late payments to credit bureaus. She stated : \" We only report late payments if we charge a late fee '' This was a clear, official policy statement from a supervisor with full authority and training. \n\nSTATEMENT # 3 - NO LATE FEES CHARGED : The supervisor confirmed : \" I do not see any late fees charged to your account '' She verified that NO late fees had been charged for XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, or any other month in XXXX. \n\nSTATEMENT # 4 - SHOULD NOT BE REPORTED LATE : Based on her review and Chase 's policy, the supervisor told me : \" No late fees, so those months should not be reported as late to the credit bureaus '' She was directly stating that according to Chase 's policy ( no late fee = no late reporting ) and her review of my account ( no late fees charged ), the months should NOT be reported as late.\n\nSTATEMENT # 5 - HELPED ME ACCESS ACCOUNT : The supervisor unlocked my online account, which I had been unable to access for months ( the system kept saying my account \" doesn't exist '' ).\n\nShe sent me a code that allowed me to log in and view my account for the first time in months.\n\nSTATEMENT # 6 - TOLD ME TO GATHER DOCUMENTS TO \" SHOW THEM '' : After reviewing my account and making all the above statements, the supervisor told me to : Access my online account Pull/download documents and statements \" You can show them '' MEANING : The supervisor was telling me to gather documentation and use it to \" show them '' - meaning show the credit bureaus or whoever needed to see proof.\n\nShe was essentially telling me to dispute the inaccurate credit reporting because based on her review : No late payments for XXXX Chase 's policy : only report late if late fee charged No late fees were charged Therefore, months should not be reported as late WHY SUPERVISOR 'S STATUS MATTERS : This was a SUPERVISOR making these statements, not an entry-level representative. \nThis is legally significant because : Supervisors have extensive training and experience Supervisors have full access to Chase 's systems and records Supervisors are authorized to make official policy statements Supervisors speak with Chase 's corporate authority Chase can not claim \" she didn't know '' or \" she made a mistake '' When a SUPERVISOR reviews an account, explains company policy, and tells a customer the reporting is wrong, that represents an official assessment from Chase. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX - FORMAL DISPUTES FILED : The SAME DAY as the supervisor call ( XX/XX/XXXX ), I filed formal disputes with all three credit bureaus : XXXX  XXXX  XXXX  I filed these disputes BECAUSE : Chase 's own supervisor confirmed there were no late payments for XXXX Supervisor confirmed no late fees were charged Supervisor stated Chase 's policy : no late fee = no late reporting Supervisor said the months should NOT be reported as late Supervisor helped me access documentation to support my dispute I was exercising my legal right under FCRA to dispute inaccurate information, and I was doing so based on Chase 's own supervisor telling me the reporting was wrong. \n\n\n\nWHY THIS IS ILLEGAL FURNISHER RETALIATION UNDER FCRA Under 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ), when a consumer disputes information, the furnisher must : 1. Conduct reasonable investigation 2. Review all relevant information provided by consumer 3. Report results to credit bureaus 4. NOT retaliate against consumer for exercising dispute rights Chase violated ALL of these requirements : VIOLATION # 1 : RETALIATION FOR CHALLENGING THEM Timeline proves retaliation : XX/XX/XXXX : Chase reports XXXX XXXX XXXX OK/good standing '' to all three bureaus XX/XX/XXXX : I challenge Chase and mention disputing XX/XX/XXXX : Chase changes reporting to show Feb-Sept as \" 60 days late '' This happened BEFORE I filed any formal disputes Chase made my credit reporting WORSE after I challenged them, not better. Chase changed reporting that they had been providing for months as \" good standing '' to suddenly show as \" late '' - ONLY AFTER I challenged them.\n\nThis is textbook illegal furnisher retaliation under FCRA.\n\nVIOLATION # 2 : THEIR OWN SUPERVISOR CONTRADICTED THE REPORTING XX/XX/XXXX : Chase reports Feb-Sept as 60 days late XX/XX/XXXX : Chase 's supervisor says \" no missed or late payments for XXXX '' If Chase conducted any reasonable investigation before changing the reporting on XX/XX/XXXX, why did their own supervisor contradict that reporting just TWO DAYS LATER?\n\nThe supervisor reviewed the account and found : No late payments for XXXX No late fees charged By Chase 's policy, nothing should be reported late Yet Chase 's XX/XX/XXXX reporting showed multiple months as 60 days late. \n\nThis proves Chase did NOT conduct a reasonable investigation. They retaliated. \n\nVIOLATION # XXXX : REPORTING XXXX AS LATE DESPITE ON-TIME PAYMENT XX/XX/XXXX payments : XX/XX/XXXX : {$46.00} ( regular on-time payment ) XX/XX/XXXX : {$92.00} ( makeup payment ) XX/XX/XXXX : {$46.00} ( makeup payment ) TOTAL : {$180.00} Chase reported XXXX as \" 60 days late. '' QUESTION : How can a month be \" 60 days late '' when : The regular monthly payment was made ON TIME TWO additional makeup payments were also made in that month Total of {$180.00} was paid ( 4x the regular payment amount ) ANSWER : It can't. This reporting is objectively FALSE.\n\nThis proves Chase 's reporting is not \" corrective '' or \" accurate '' - it is retaliatory and false.\n\nVIOLATION # 4 : VIOLATED THEIR OWN STATED POLICY Chase 's supervisor stated Chase 's policy : \" We only report late payments if we charge a late fee '' Chase 's supervisor confirmed : \" No late fees charged '' Yet Chase reported months as late anyway.\n\nChase violated their own policy as stated by their own supervisor.\n\nVIOLATION # 5 : SYSTEMATIC RETALIATION ACROSS ALL THREE BUREAUS Chase didn't change reporting to just one bureau. They changed reporting to ALL THREE bureaus simultaneously on XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX This proves the changes were : Coordinated Systematic Intentional Retaliatory This was not an error or isolated incident. This was deliberate retaliation executed across Chase 's entire credit reporting system.\n\nDOCUMENTED HARM CAUSED BY CHASE 'S ILLEGAL CONDUCT HARM # 1 : IMMEDIATE THREAT TO SECURITY CLEARANCE Chase 's false reporting is in my Continuous Evaluation monitoring RIGHT NOW.\n\nThe DoD security system sees : Multiple \" 60 days late '' marks across three bureaus Pattern appearing to show financial irresponsibility Red flags triggering in automated monitoring Consequences if clearance review is triggered : Immediate questioning about financial issues XXXX on my record even after explanation Possible clearance suspension during review Contract termination if clearance suspended Loss of income within days Inability to get other federal contractor jobs Months to rebuild clearance even after credit corrected This harm is IMMEDIATE and IRREVERSIBLE once review triggers. Every day Chase 's false reporting remains increases the risk.\n\nHARM # 2 : IMMEDIATE THREAT TO HOUSING My mortgage approval for the home where my child and I live is in jeopardy due to Chase 's retaliatory credit reporting. My lender has raised concerns about the credit issues.\n\nIf my mortgage is denied due to Chase 's illegal conduct : My son and I will be homeless in XX/XX/XXXX We can not afford to rent in our area ( rental costs exceed mortgage payments ) My child will lose stability and security during a critical time I will lose the opportunity to build equity and financial security This is not theoretical- I have a closing deadline in approximately 10 weeks.\n\nHARM # 3 : IMMINENT EMPLOYMENT TERMINATION The clearance and housing threats combine to create employment jeopardy : Clearance loss = immediate job termination Housing loss = instability making job search difficult Loss of income = inability to maintain housing All three create downward spiral This is not speculative future harm. This is : Clearance monitoring active NOW Housing deadline in 10 weeks False reports affecting both NOW HARM # 4 : QUANTIFIABLE CREDIT SCORE DAMAGE My FICO Score 8 graph ( attached ) shows : Stable credit scores through XX/XX/XXXX DRAMATIC DROP in XX/XX/XXXX Drop coincides EXACTLY with Chase 's XX/XX/XXXX retaliatory reporting changes All three credit bureaus show simultaneous score drops This credit damage : Directly threatens my mortgage approval May result in higher interest rates if I am approved Could cost me thousands of dollars over the life of a mortgage Damages my creditworthiness for years Triggers clearance monitoring flags All caused by Chase 's illegal retaliation HARM # 5 : EMOTIONAL AND XXXX  HARM Chase 's conduct has caused : Extreme XXXX  and XXXX  about losing housing Fear of my child becoming homeless Terror about losing clearance and career Sleepless nights worrying about the XXXX deadline Constant monitoring of clearance status Feeling helpless against a large corporation 's illegal retaliation Having to fight for basic fairness while facing multiple crises HARM # 6 : FINANCIAL HARM Potential loss of home purchase opportunity Higher costs if forced to rent instead Lost opportunity to build equity Potential loss of entire career if clearance lost Time and resources spent fighting Chase 's illegal conduct Costs associated with disputing and documenting everything CHASE HAS NO VALID DEFENSE Chase can not defend their conduct : \" We were correcting inaccurate reporting '' Your own supervisor confirmed on XX/XX/XXXX there were no late payments Why report XXXX as late when it was paid on time with XXXX payments? \nWhy wait until AFTER consumer challenges you to \" correct '' anything? \n\n\" The customer filed disputes so we investigated '' You changed reporting on XX/XX/XXXX, BEFORE I filed any formal disputes I didn't file disputes until XX/XX/XXXX You retaliated for being challenged, not for formal disputes \" Our supervisor made a mistake '' She's a SUPERVISOR - trained, experienced, authorized She reviewed the entire account She stated official Chase policy She confirmed no late fees charged She told me the reporting was wrong \" The timing is coincidence '' XX/XX/XXXX : Report everything as \" good standing '' XX/XX/XXXX : Customer challenges us XX/XX/XXXX : Change reporting to \" 60 days late '' ( 19 days later ) XX/XX/XXXX : Supervisor says \" no late payments '' This timeline proves deliberate retaliation \" We only report accurate information '' XXXX had THREE payments totaling {$180.00} including on-time regular payment Yet you reported XXXX as \" 60 days late '' This is objectively false The facts are undeniable. Chase engaged in illegal furnisher retaliation. \n\nEVIDENCE OF POTENTIAL COVER-UP ATTEMPT XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX On XX/XX/XXXX, I contacted Chase requesting call summaries to verify my timeline. Chase provided detailed notes for the XX/XX/XXXX call but stated that notes for the XX/XX/XXXX supervisor call are \" incomplete. '' This is highly suspicious as the XX/XX/XXXX call contains key evidence contradicting Chase 's false reporting. \n\nThe selective \" incomplete '' documentation suggests possible evidence tampering or cover-up attempts. Chase can document routine calls in detail but conveniently can not document the supervisor call where their own representative contradicted their false reporting. \n\nI have a recording of this XX/XX/XXXX call where Chase representatives confirm the XX/XX/XXXX notes are \" incomplete '' while other calls have complete detailed notes. \n\nI request CFPB investigate this apparent attempt to hide evidence that would prove Chase 's misconduct.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-10-28T23:27:16.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"78418","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"16863466","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","date_received":"2025-10-28T20:46:36.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This was makeup for XXXX ( <em>which</em> I had just learned about ). \n\nBank statement attached proving this payment."]},"sort":[9.491221,"16863466"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"22228653","_score":8.999789,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"Creditor : Bureau of Accounts Control ( XXXX  ) Account Number : XXXX Original Creditor : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ) ( XXXX XXXX ) Disputed Amount : {$5600.00} Subject : Dispute of Invalid Debt, Violation of N.J.S.A. 46:8-21.1, and FDCPA Communication Violations.\n\nComplaint Description : I am formally disputing a collection account reported by Bureau of Accounts Control ( XXXX  ) regarding an alleged debt from XXXX XXXX XXXX  ( XXXX  ). This debt is legally void under New Jersey state law, and the collection agency is engaging in non-compliant reporting and illegal communication practices.\n\n1. Strict Statutory Violation ( N.J.S.A. 46:8-21.1 ) I surrendered possession of the premises at XXXX  XXXX and returned all keys on XX/XX/XXXX. The landlords own \" Move-Out Statement '' explicitly acknowledges XX/XX/XXXX as the \" Move-Out Date ''. Under New Jerseys Security Deposit Act ( N.J.S.A. 46:8-21.1 ), the landlord is strictly required to return the security deposit or provide an itemized statement of deductions within 30 daysby XX/XX/XXXX. The landlord failed this requirement ; the notice was postmarked XX/XX/XXXX, missing the statutory deadline ( Exhibit A ). Consequently, the landlord forfeited any legal claim to the security deposit or move-out charges.\n\n2. Failure to Conduct a Reasonable Investigation ( FCRA Violation ) The collection agency, XXXX, has failed in its duty to conduct a \" reasonable investigation '' of my dispute : Contradictory Documentation : XXXX provided two conflicting versions of the \" Move-Out Statement. '' Version 1 was generated on XX/XX/XXXX, while Version 2 was generated on XX/XX/XXXX ( Exhibit B ). \nProcedural Impossibility : XXXX \" verified '' this debt as accurate with the credit bureaus on XX/XX/XXXX. However, the primary supporting document used to justify the balance ( Version 2 ) was not generated until XX/XX/XXXX - six days after Move-Out Statement version 2 was generated, XXXX  verified the debt in all credit bureau XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX ( Exhibit C )  Disregard of Evidence : On XX/XX/XXXX, ( Exhibit D ) I sent a formal dispute to XXXX via XXXX, mentioned about Violation of N.J.S.A. 46:8-21.1 rule. XXXX  response on XX/XX/XXXX, shows the XX/XX/XXXX mailing date but willfully ignored the legal implications of the missed 30-day deadline. \nI have attempted to resolve this matter directly with XXXX through formal written disputes, providing them with clear evidence of the legal deadline violation. Despite having this proof in their possession, XXXX has refused to correct the record or delete the invalid entry, demonstrating a bad-faith effort to collect a void debt.\n\n3. Unreliable Business Records The landlords internal records are inconsistent and demonstrably inaccurate. In an email to XXXX  on XX/XX/XXXX, the leasing agent claimed a notice was returned to their office on XX/XX/XXXX. However, in a prior email to me on XX/XX/XXXX, she stated the mail was returned on XX/XX/XXXX. The physical envelope ( Exhibit E ) confirms the XX/XX/XXXX date, proving the landlords reporting to the agency is unreliable.\n\n4. Evidence of Retaliatory Collection The referral to collections was a direct response to my legal inquiry. On XX/XX/XXXX, I sent a formal demand for the return of my security deposit. Within 25 hours, on XX/XX/XXXX, the landlord responded by stating the account had been referred to a collection agency. This timeline confirms the debt was weaponized only after I requested my funds back as per New Jersey law ( Exhibit F ). \n5. Direct Violation of the FDCPA ( Illegal Communication ) In my formal, written dispute letter sent on XX/XX/XXXX ( Exhibit G ), I explicitly instructed XXXX  that they were not authorized to contact me via telephone and that all communications must be in writing. Despite this clear, written restriction, XXXX representative \" XXXX '' placed a collection call to my phone on XX/XX/XXXX, at XXXX XXXX, leaving a voicemail demanding a callback ( Exhibit H ). This constitutes a willful violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) regarding restricted communications. This is a clear violation of 15 U.S.C. 1692c ( c ), which requires a debt collector to cease communication upon written notice.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-05-15T02:11:11.000Z","issue":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","sub_product":"Rental debt","zip_code":"088XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"22228653","timely":"No","company_response":"Untimely response","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Bureau of Accounts Control","date_received":"2026-05-15T01:38:58.000Z","state":"NJ","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Debt is not yours"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This is a clear violation of 15 U.S.C. 1692c ( c ), <em>which</em> requires a debt collector to cease communication upon written notice."]},"sort":[8.999789,"22228653"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8084362","_score":8.965748,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"This occurred on XX/XX/XXXX of willful illegal actions against XXXX XXXX XXXX. \n\nResponse : XXXX XXXX XXXX showed prior evidence supporting documents in support of criminal action against herself case number XXXX where she was the legal guardian and charges of XXXX XXXX where not found in the proceedings to change circumstances. \nFacts XXXX XXXX XXXX was XXXX parent which the Children was taken out of her home unlawful with a child support order and a protection order in place at the time of the incident a bankruptcy XXXX  XXXX took place where XXXX XXXX XXXX had sole custody rights. \nThe father XXXX XXXX XXXX stopped paying child support and a debt took place causing adverse actions against XXXX XXXX XXXX by XXXX XXXX XXXX and his employer. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX was granted custody in XXXX. A bankruptcy XXXX  XXXX was started in XXXX but converted into a XXXX  XXXX because XXXX XXXX had passed away the Attorney of XXXX XXXX XXXX former name XXXX XXXX XXXX. The proceedings had an automatic Stay 11 USC 362. When the actions against XXXX XXXX XXXX occurred a violation of the protection order called injunction happened. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX case was discharged in XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX XXXX committed fraud by false allegations without the presence of the mother XXXX XXXX XXXX which XXXX XXXX XXXX was not prosecuted for the allegations of deceit. Damages occurred in the lost of her children and property from debt owed to XXXX XXXX by the father XXXX XXXX XXXX. This statement is admitted by XXXX XXXX and his Counsel twice. XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX attorney for XXXX XXXX XXXX. Adversary Actions took place by taxes and deduction with XXXX as employer. The record shows in the Supporting evidence orders with debt owed to XXXX XXXX XXXX. The record shows assailants Department of XXXX XXXX rejection of an order done in XXXX in which a lawsuit against Defendants was and is being sought case XXXX The litigants did not file an appeal to the original order of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX . The litigants can not change an order of default and a signed agreement between parties without becoming a party to damages by the negligence and non-compliance of law toward the victim called XXXX XXXX XXXX. This would be a breach of duty and failure to report. Mr. XXXX XXXX XXXX failed to fill a Motion of Revision as his own Attorney admitted with in 10 days to dispute the findings and facts of the child support and the maintenance. In XXXX without XXXX XXXX knowledge while she was trying to save her home at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX WA XXXX and was involved in a car accident. XXXX XXXX and his colleagues from XXXX XXXX Deputies went to my home and took the children. These were criminal action against a women outside the practice of law and procedures. The Bankruptcy Court discharge gave conditions within the law under 11 usc 524 to protect under certain conditions from adversary actions. \n\n\n\n\nExhibit Bankruptcy XXXX  XXXX from Experian credit which is evidence supporting legal documents given by the Court of law which prevents adverse actions against All entities. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX also reported the illegal actions with the U.S. Department of Labor and these Violation have continued for 8 years under Rcw ( 1 ) It is unlawful for any local government official or employee to take retaliatory action against a local government employee because the employee provided information in good faith in accordance with the provisions of this chapter that an improper governmental action occurred. \nXXXX XXXX : Retaliatory action unlawfulRelief by whistleblowerPenalty. \nWitnesses : XXXX XXXX former Judge, XXXX XXXX my former attorney, my Bankruptcy Attorney, XXXX XXXX private personal injury attorney, Doctors and Staff in which XXXX almost lost her life. \nOfficial proceeding means a proceeding heard before any legislative, judicial, administrative, or other government agency or official authorized to hear evidence under oath, including any referee, hearing examiner, commissioner, notary, or other person taking testimony or depositions ; RCW 9A.72.010 Definitions.\n\nThe following definitions are applicable in this chapter unless the context otherwise requires : ( 1 ) \" Materially false statement '' means any false statement oral or written, regardless of its admissibility under the rules of evidence, which could have affected the course or outcome of the proceeding ; ( 2 ) \" Oath '' includes an affirmation and every other mode authorized by law of attesting to the truth of that which is stated ; in this chapter, written statements shall be treated as if made under oath if : ( a ) The statement was made on or pursuant to instructions on an official form bearing notice, authorized by law, to the effect that false statements made therein are punishable ; ( b ) The statement recites that it was made under oath, the declarant was aware of such recitation at the time he or she made the statement, intended that the statement should be represented as a sworn statement, and the statement was in fact so represented by its delivery or utterance with the signed jurat of an officer authorized to administer oaths appended thereto ; or ( c ) It is a statement, declaration, verification, or certificate, made within or outside the state of Washington, which is declared to be true under penalty of perjury as provided in chapter 5.50 RCW.\n\n( 3 ) An oath is \" required or authorized by law '' when the use of the oath is specifically provided for by statute or regulatory provision or when the oath is administered by a person authorized by state or federal law to administer oaths ; Violation Rule 7001 ( 7 ) Scope of Rules of Part VII ( 7 ) a proceeding to obtain an injunction or other equitable relief, except when a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, or XXXX  XXXX plan provides for the relief ; Request Defendants be added to case XXXX / XXXX An adversary proceeding is governed by the rules of this Part VII. The following are adversary proceedings : By these hostile attacks charges have been commented under 15 U.S.C.\n\nUnited States Code, 2019 Edition Title 15 - COMMERCE AND TRADE CHAPTER 47 - CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY Sec. 2069 - Civil penalties From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov 2069. Civil penalties ( a ) Amount of penalty ( 1 ) Any person who knowingly violates section 2068 of this title shall be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed {$100000.00} for each such violation. Subject to paragraph ( 2 ), a violation of section 2068 ( a ) ( 1 ), ( 2 ), ( 4 ), ( 5 ), ( 6 ), ( 7 ), ( 8 ), ( 9 ), ( 10 ), or ( 11 ) of this title shall constitute a separate offense with respect to each consumer product involved, except that the maximum civil penalty shall not exceed {>= $1,000,000} for any related series of violations. A violation of section 2068 ( a ) ( 3 ) of this title shall constitute a separate violation with respect to each failure or refusal to allow or perform an act required thereby ; and, if such violation is a continuing one, each day of such violation shall constitute a separate offense, except that the maximum civil penalty shall not exceed {>= $1,000,000} for any related series of violations.\n\nRelated incident report mailed XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Credit reporting Problem with a company 's investigation into an existing problem EXPERIAN XX/XX/XXXX Open Sent to Company ATTACHMENTS ExperianXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Submitted to the CFPB on XX/XX/XXXX New evidence Experian credit answer attached without facts, findings, evidence supporting its rejection. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX charges the credit agency in the following violation of the law and request prosecution for the breaking of the laws within the complaint. \n\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX is seeking relief for damages {>= $1,000,000}. Over {>= $1,000,000}. For its willful actions to disobey laws in place to protect the citizens from discrimination being a XXXX  over XXXX  years of age in Title VII in fair credit reporting. \n\nI declare ( or certify, verify, or state ) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on XX/XX/XXXX XXXX in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Signature ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX WA XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2024-01-03T11:57:07.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"984XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8084362","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2023-12-30T15:42:58.000Z","state":"WA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Department of Labor and these Violation have continued for 8 years under Rcw ( 1 ) It is unlawful for any local government official or employee to take <em>retaliatory</em> action against a local government employee because the employee provided information in good <em>faith</em> in accordance with the provisions of this chapter that an improper governmental action occurred. \nXXXX XXXX : <em>Retaliatory</em> action unlawfulRelief by whistleblowerPenalty."],"issue":["Problem with a company's <em>investigation</em> into an existing problem"],"sub_issue":["Their <em>investigation</em> did not fix an error on your report"]},"sort":[8.965748,"8084362"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"20879785","_score":8.663762,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"I. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF THIS COMPLAINT This complaint is filed as a new, comprehensive formal complaint against Navy Federal Credit Union ( NFCU ) following the inadequate and factually inaccurate response Navy Federal provided to CFPB Case No. XXXX. The prior complaint was closed on XX/XX/XXXX after I disputed Navy Federal 's response, indicating that their response did not address my issues, I did not understand their response, and they did not do what they said they would do. \nThis complaint addresses multiple serious federal violations including unauthorized electronic fund transfers, systemic internal accounting errors, retaliatory conduct, denial of legally required documentation, and the improper closure of my accounts during an active dispute period. The total financial harm I have suffered is substantial and has resulted in the depletion of inherited funds, returned payments, inability to pay essential bills, and significant financial instability. \n\nXXXX. BACKGROUND AND TIMELINE I established membership with Navy Federal Credit Union on XX/XX/XXXX. Beginning in XX/XX/XXXX, I noticed unauthorized and fraudulent transactions on my accounts. The following is a summary of key events : XX/XX/XXXX : Membership established with NFCU XXXX XXXX : Unauthorized transactions begin appearing on accounts XX/XX/XXXX : First fraud claims filed XX/XX/XXXX : Inheritance funds of {$98000.00} deposited via bank wire into savings account XXXX XXXX XXXX : Unauthorized transfers from savings to checking account begin, exposing inheritance funds to fraudulent debit card activity XX/XX/XXXX : {$2700.00} money order deposit NFCU text message confirmed available balance of {$2900.00} ; however, statement shows a completely different balance, constituting a documented three-way discrepancy between text notification, ATM receipt, and statement XX/XX/XXXX : AppFolio/Salesloft data breach discovered, exposing XXXX XXXX XXXX address, date of birth, and Social Security number to unauthorized actors XX/XX/XXXX : Additional fraud claims filed XX/XX/XXXX : Additional fraud claims filed XX/XX/XXXX : Navy Federal sends threatening letter warning me that continued fraud claims could result in XXXX suspension of debit card privileges sent while I was a confirmed data breach victim XX/XX/XXXX : XXXX formal data breach notification letter received XX/XX/XXXX : Granite School District data breach also exposed my personal information XX/XX/XXXX : I submitted formal Second Appeal with full evidence packet by email to multiple Navy Federal departments including Legal, Compliance, Executive Relations , and Fraud Operations XX/XX/XXXX : Navy Federal responds to prior CFPB complaint response is factually incomplete and fails to address core issues XX/XX/XXXX : I disputed Navy Federal 's CFPB response, marking all three questions as 'No ' XX/XX/XXXX : CFPB complaint closed without resolution III. SPECIFIC VIOLATIONS AND EVIDENCE A. Regulation XXXX Violations Failure to Conduct Lawful Investigation Under 12 C.F.R. 1005.11, Navy Federal is required to investigate error notices within XXXX business days, provide provisional credit where applicable, and furnish written explanation of findings including the documents relied upon. Navy Federal has violated each of these requirements : Navy Federal closed my dispute in approximately XXXX days without conducting a good-faith review or requesting additional information from me Navy Federal claimed I did not answer 'XXXX  questions ' but no such form or questionnaire was ever provided to me Navy Federal 's denial letters stated 'you have the right to request the documentation used in making this determination ' I requested this documentation in writing and it was never provided, in direct violation of Regulation E Navy Federal 's stated reasons for denial 'you benefited financially ' and 'you authorized and/or participated \" are conclusory allegations with no factual support or documentation provided The use of 'and/or ' in the denial language demonstrates that Navy Federal did not conduct a specific investigation but rather applied a generic template denial B. Documented Balance Discrepancies Internal Accounting Failures The following discrepancies are documented with physical ATM receipts, NFCU text message notifications, and bank statements. These discrepancies exist independent of any fraud claims and demonstrate a systemic internal accounting failure within Navy Federal 's ledger and statement generation systems : Discrepancy 1 XX/XX/XXXX ( Statement XXXX ) : ATM receipt ledger balance : {$52000.00} ATM receipt available balance : {$51000.00} Statement Page XXXX, Line XXXX balance : {$50000.00} Statement Page XXXX, Line XXXX balance : {$50000.00} XXXX different figures for the same account on the same date unexplained difference of over {$2100.00} Discrepancy XXXX XX/XX/XXXX : ATM receipt shows : {$1300.00} Statement Page XXXX, Line XXXX : {$2900.00} Statement Page XXXX, Line XXXX : {$2900.00} Statement Page XXXX, Line XXXX : {$2700.00} Balance changing across XXXX consecutive lines with no corresponding posted transactions Discrepancy XXXX XX/XX/XXXX : ATM receipt shows : {$4900.00} Statement Page XXXX, Line XXXX : {$3600.00} Unexplained difference of {$1200.00} Discrepancy XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ( Statement XXXX ) : XXXX XXXX XXXX ATM receipt dated XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, account ending XXXX : Receipt Ledger Balance : {$48000.00} Receipt Available Balance : {$46000.00} Statement Page XXXX, Line XXXX : {$47000.00} XXXX different figures {$1900.00} gap between ledger and available on the same receipt Discrepancy XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ( {$2700.00} deposit ) : NFCU text message ( from short code XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX at XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX ) : \" {$2700.00} was deposited into your acct end. in XXXX. As of XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX XXXX  XXXX the avail. bal. is {$2900.00} ' ATM receipt available balance : {$2900.00} Statement Page XXXX, Line XXXX : {$4600.00} Statement Page XXXX, Line XXXX : {$1200.00} Navy Federal 's own text message contradicts their own statement this is documented in their system In their CFPB response, Navy Federal attempted to explain balance discrepancies by referencing their transaction posting order policy. This explanation is wholly inadequate and factually inapplicable because posting order does not explain why the ledger balance and available balance differ on the same receipt at the same moment, nor why the receipt balance differs from the statement balance for the same account on the same date. \n\nC. Unauthorized Transfers From Savings Account Following the deposit of my inheritance funds of {$98000.00} on XX/XX/XXXX, multiple large transfers were made from my savings account ( XXXX ) to my checking account that I did not initiate or authorize. These unauthorized transfers systematically moved my inherited funds from savings into checking where they were then exposed to fraudulent debit card activity. The pattern of transfers occurring in rapid succession in large round amounts is consistent with unauthorized account access rather than legitimate member-initiated transfers. \n\nXXXX XXXX Transactions My bank statements contain multiple instances of identical transactions posting on the same date for the same amount, which I have documented and flagged. Examples include duplicate XXXX XXXX Balance charges on the same day, duplicate XXXX XXXX charges, and duplicate XXXX charges. Navy Federal 's own text fraud alert system flagged card ending in XXXX for suspicious transactions including XXXX XXXX XXXX ( {$390.00} ) on XX/XX/XXXX and XXXX  ( {$3.00} ) on XX/XX/XXXX, yet these same transactions were used as evidence against me in the denial.\n\nE. Multiple Unauthorized Card Numbers and Account Access During the dispute period my Navy Federal profile had unauthorized phone numbers and accounts linked to it that I did not add. Multiple debit card numbers were active simultaneously including cards XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX appearing across statements in the same period. I received notifications of my card numbers being linked to XXXX accounts that are not mine. I was also informed that someone bypassed Navy Federal 's voice recognition system to gain access to my account, which Navy Federal 's security protocols should have prevented.\n\nF. Account Restriction During Active Dispute Navy Federal restricted my access to my account, statements, and transaction details during the period when fraudulent charges were occurring. This restriction directly prevented me from properly identifying, documenting, and disputing the unauthorized charges. This is particularly egregious because Navy Federal then used my inability to provide detailed documentation as justification for denying my claims. \n\nG. Retaliatory Threat Letter On XX/XX/XXXX, while I was a confirmed victim of XXXX separate data breaches and while my fraud claims were actively pending, XXXX XXXX sent me a threatening letter warning that I could have my debit card privileges suspended for up to XXXX years for filing 'suspicious claims. ' This letter was sent to both of my known addresses on the same date. This conduct is retaliatory, coercive, and constitutes an unfair, deceptive, and abusive act or practice under CFPB UDAAP authority, as it was designed to discourage me from exercising my federally protected right to dispute unauthorized transactions. \n\nH. Data Breaches and Compromised Identity I was the victim of XXXX documented data breaches during the period of fraudulent activity : XXXX XXXX XXXX data breach XX/XX/XXXX, exposing personal identifiable information AppFolio/Salesloft data breach discovered XX/XX/XXXX, formally notified XX/XX/XXXX ; breach exposed my name, address, date of birth, and Social Security number Navy Federal 's investigation made no attempt to consider whether my compromised identity from these data breaches contributed to the unauthorized account access. A proper Regulation E investigation would have considered this context. \n\nI. Merchant Refunds Not Credited XXXX formally processed a payment dispute for Full Self-Driving ( Supervised ) charges and confirmed in writing that the bank is responsible for refunding the original payment. Navy Federal has not processed or credited this refund to my account. \n\nJ. Account Closure During Active Dispute Navy Federal closed my accounts during the period of active dispute and regulatory complaint, leaving both my checking and savings accounts at XXXX. The final statement for period XXXX shows both accounts ending at {$0.00} with a notation that accounts were closed. This closure occurred while my disputes were unresolved and while I had an active regulatory complaint pending, leaving me without access to any funds. \n\nIV. FINANCIAL HARM As a direct result of Navy Federal 's failures, I have suffered the following documented financial harm : Depletion of inherited funds from a starting balance of approximately {$98000.00} through unauthorized transfers and fraudulent transactions Returned payments due to insufficient funds caused by account discrepancies Inability to pay essential bills during the dispute period Loss of account access preventing me from managing my finances Ongoing financial instability Professional risk I hold a state-issued professional license and any appearance of financial misconduct could jeopardize my career V. DEMANDS FOR RELIEF I respectfully request that the CFPB require Navy Federal Credit Union to : 1. Conduct a full forensic accounting reconciliation of all transactions across all affected accounts for the period XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX 2. Provide complete written documentation of all investigation findings for every denied claim, as required under Regulation E 3. Reimburse all unauthorized and fraudulent charges in accordance with the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1693 et seq. ) and Regulation E 4. Reimburse all funds lost through unauthorized transfers from savings account XXXX XXXX. Process the pending XXXX merchant refund 6. Explain and reconcile all documented balance discrepancies between ATM receipts, text message notifications, and bank statements 7. Withdraw and retract the retaliatory XX/XX/XXXX threat letter 8. Remove any adverse notations related to fraud claim activity from my member account record 9. Provide a full accounting of all account numbers, phone numbers, and devices that were linked to my membership profile during the dispute period VI. SUPPORTING EVIDENCE The following documents and evidence support this complaint and are available upon request : Physical ATM receipts showing balance discrepancies ( XXXX XXXX XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX ) Navy Federal deposit receipt showing {$2700.00} deposit ( XX/XX/XXXX ) NFCU text message notifications showing balances that contradict statements Navy Federal bank statements for periods XXXX with annotated discrepancies XXXX Federal XXXX XXXX text messages on card XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX ) Navy Federal security code warning texts ( XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX ) Navy Federal denial emails for debit card XXXX ( {$1000.00} and {$4400.00} ) Navy Federal threatening letter dated XX/XX/XXXX ( received XXXX copies ) XXXX payment dispute confirmation email AppFolio/Salesloft data breach notification letter dated XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX data breach notification dated XX/XX/XXXX All formal appeal letters and legal notice emails sent to Navy Federal XX/XX/XXXX Prior CFPB complaint and Navy Federal response ( Case No. XXXX ) Call recordings of interactions with Navy Federal representatives VII. CONCLUSION Navy Federal Credit Union has repeatedly failed to conduct lawful investigations, has withheld documentation I am legally entitled to, has restricted my account during an active dispute, has retaliated against me for exercising my rights, and has provided responses to regulators that are factually incomplete and misleading. I am a victim of identity theft through XXXX documented data breaches, and Navy Federal 's failure to investigate properly has resulted in the loss of substantial inherited funds and ongoing financial harm. \nI respectfully request that the CFPB conduct a thorough investigation of this matter, impose appropriate penalties, and require Navy Federal to make me whole. \n\nRespectfully submitted,","date_sent_to_company":"2026-04-02T12:29:03.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"758XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"20879785","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","date_received":"2026-04-02T12:23:39.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","sub_issue":"Banking errors"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Regulation XXXX Violations Failure to Conduct Lawful <em>Investigation</em> Under 12 C.F.R. 1005.11, Navy Federal is required to <em>investigate</em> error notices within XXXX business days, provide provisional credit where applicable, and furnish written explanation of findings including the documents relied upon."]},"sort":[8.663762,"20879785"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17359835","_score":8.311375,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"Final Comprehensive Complaint Letter To : Axos Bank Attn : Corporate Compliance Department & Office of the President Address : XXXX LA XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX From : XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX Address : XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX Date : XXXX XXXX XXXX Subject : URGENT EMERGENCY COMPLAINT - Formal Appeal of Final Decision ( Ref :! XXXX. ! XXXX ), Disputed Claim ( Case # XXXX ), and Notice of Potential Legal Violations Account Holder 1 : Name : XXXX XXXX Email : XXXX Phone : XXXX Portal Username : XXXX Date of Birth : XXXX SSN : [ XXXX ] Account Holder 2 : Name : XXXX XXXX XXXX : XXXX Phone : XXXX Portal Username : XXXX Date of Birth : XXXX SSN : [ XXXX ] Affected Account Numbers : Checking ( Partial ) : XXXX Checking & Saving : We do not know our full account numbers because you have locked us out of our portal. Please locate all associated accounts using our names and Social Security Numbers.\n\nTo Whom It May Concern, We are writing to file a formal emergency complaint and to appeal three separate, urgent issues : The final decision to terminate our banking relationship ( Ref :! XXXX.! XXXX ). \n\nThe denied decision on our previous dispute, Case # XXXX. \n\nNew, unresolved financial discrepancies, including a wrongful negative balance. \n\nIssue 1 : The Wrongful Termination Our relationship was terminated improperly, without a good-faith human investigation, and as a direct act of retaliation. Your bank provided us with two different, contradictory reasons for this action. \n\nHere is the exact, documented timeline of events from XXXX XXXX XXXX  ( all times XXXX ) : Afternoon ( approx. XXXX XXXX  ) : After a {$140.00} check was rejected, we initiated a Live Chat to resolve the issue. We also tried to correct a clerical error on our account where XXXX XXXX XXXX name is misspelled as \" XXXX XXXX, '' which we believe caused the check to fail. \n\nDuring the Chat : We spoke with your agent, XXXX XXXX XXXX, and verified our full identity. \n\nContradictory Reason 1 : Agent XXXX XXXX XXXX explicitly stated our account was restricted not because of the check, but because of our previous dispute. His exact words ( from our memory ) were : \" I can see that you have submitted a complaint requesting the bank to reconsider and conduct a reinvestigation of a previously denied transaction dispute. This is the reason your accounts have been restricted. '' Immediately After Chat : The agent ended the chat. Seconds later, our online portal accounts ( XXXX, XXXX ) were suspended, and we were completely locked out. \n\nXXXXXXXX XXXX  : Contradictory Reason 2 : We received an automated email ( see Exhibit A ) stating the reason was \" Image Fails Security Check. '' This directly contradicts the reason given by your live agent seconds earlier. \n\nXXXXXXXX XXXX  : Just ONE MINUTE after the rejection email, we received the final, non-reversible notice ( see Exhibit B ) permanently terminating our entire banking relationship. \n\nAfter the Chat : The chat bot promised to email us a transcript ( \" Ok. Your transcript will be sent to you. '' ) We never received this transcript. This is a critical failure to provide a record of our conversation. \n\nThis timeline proves there was no human investigation. We were terminated seconds after your own agent acknowledged our valid complaint. \n\nIssue 2 : Previously Denied Dispute We formally appeal your decision on Case # XXXX. We disagree with the original finding and demand it be reopened and reviewed by a new investigator.\n\nIssue 3 : Unresolved Financials & Wrongful Charges Our account was left with outstanding discrepancies : Wrongful Negative Balance : Our account shows a current negative balance of $ XXXX. We formally dispute the chargeback or fees that caused this. We never authorized any such dispute or chargeback. \n\nWrongful Fees : We demand that this full negative balance of {$33.00} be waived or credited to {$0.00}. We are not responsible or liable for this amount. \n\nPending Deposits : We need to know the final status of two pending mobile deposits for {$0.00} and {$5.00}. \n\nNotice of Potential Violations of Federal Law We believe this series of events provides evidence that the bank 's actions may be in violation of federal law.\n\nElectronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA, Regulation E ) : This law protects consumers who report errors or dispute transactions. Your bank 's action to terminate our relationship, which your agent admitted was because we \" submitted a complaint ... to reconsider ... a previously denied transaction dispute, '' appears to be a clear-cut case of illegal retaliatory action against us for exercising our protected rights. \n\nFair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) : This law requires you to maintain and furnish accurate consumer information. Your bank had our name misspelled ( \" XXXX XXXX '' ). When we attempted to correct this inaccurate information ( our right under the FCRA ), your system terminated our account. \n\nUnfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts or Practices ( UDAAP ) : The entire sequencefrom the contradictory reasons ( Agent vs. System ), the failed transcript, the retaliatory restriction, and the 60-second terminationconstitutes an unfair, deceptive, and abusive practice.\n\nOur Formal Demands Therefore, we formally demand the following immediate actions : Assign our entire file ( all three issues ) to a new, senior HUMAN investigator for a complete and fair review. \n\nFormally reopen, reinvestigate, and approve our appeal for Case # XXXX. \n\nInvestigate and reverse the wrongful charges, crediting our account for {$33.00} to waive the negative balance and bring it to {$0.00} or positive. \n\nRevoke the \" final decision '' ( XXXX :! XXXX.! XXXX ) and reinstate our original checking and saving accounts with all restrictions removed. \n\nAlternatively, if you refuse reinstatement, we demand that you open new checking and saving accounts for us, issue two new debit cards, and provide new portal logins, allowing us to remain your customers. \n\nCorrect all bank records to reflect the legal spelling \" XXXX XXXX. '' Provide a full accounting of our final balance, confirming the status of the {$0.00} and {$5.00} deposits and the waiver of the {$33.00} negative balance. \n\nProvide us with the full, unedited chat transcript from our conversation with XXXX XXXX XXXX on XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX, which your system promised but failed to email. \n\nIf our relationship is not reinstated, you must mail all remaining funds ( including the {$5.00} from those deposits, if posted ) via check to our address : XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX. The check must be payable to XXXX XXXX or XXXX XXXX. \n\nFinal Contingent Demand : If, after your new review, both of our appeals ( for the account termination and for XXXX # XXXX ) are still denied, we demand that you permanently delete, deactivate, and fully remove our portal logins ( XXXX and XXXX ) and all associated data from your system so we can no longer log in. \n\nProvide a full and final resolution to all these issues by our requested deadline of XXXX XXXX XXXX  \nThis is an emergency situation. We require an urgent response by XXXX XXXX XXXX  \nSincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX List of Attached Evidence We have attached copies of the following communications to this complaint : Exhibit A : Email \" Your mobile deposit was rejected '' ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ). \n\nExhibit B : Email \" End Relationship '' ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ). \n\nExhibit C : Email \" Mobile Deposit Received '' ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ). \n\nExhibit D : Emails \" Account Under Review '' ( XXXX XXXX & XXXX XXXX XXXX  ).","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-19T21:23:45.000Z","issue":"Closing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"17057","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17359835","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"AXOS FINANCIAL, INC.","date_received":"2025-11-19T21:10:06.000Z","state":"PA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Company closed your account"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Issue 1 : The Wrongful Termination Our relationship was terminated improperly, without a good-<em>faith</em> human <em>investigation</em>, and as a direct act of retaliation. Your bank provided us with two different, contradictory reasons for this action. \n\nHere is the exact, documented timeline of events from XXXX XXXX XXXX  ( all times XXXX ) : Afternoon ( approx. XXXX XXXX  ) : After a {$140.00} check was rejected, we initiated a Live Chat to resolve the issue."]},"sort":[8.311375,"17359835"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14129814","_score":7.6764894,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"This complaint serves as a formal demand under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA, XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) and Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act ( FACTA ) for the immediate removal and permanent correction of several accounts that are fraudulent, inaccurately reported, or verified in bad faith by your agencies. \n\n\n\nXXXX.XX/XX/XXXX FRAUDULENT ACCOUNT This account was opened fraudulently in my name by my ex while I was XXXX. I notified XXXX of this directly, and they were made fully aware that : I did not open or authorize this auto loan. \nI never possessed or signed for the vehicle. \nI even told XXXX the location of the car, and they subsequently recovered it. \nA police report was filed and submitted to all three credit bureaus. \n\nDespite this, Experian and TransUnion continue to report this account, nearly XXXX years later. Equifax previously removed it but has still failed to address related patterns of negligent reporting. \n\nThis is a textbook case of identity theft under FCRA XXXX, and your failure to permanently remove it after receiving official notice, police documentation, and confirmation from the lender is a willful violation of : FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ) Reporting known inaccurate information. \nFCRA XXXX Failure to reasonably investigate disputes. \nFCRA XXXX Civil liability for willful noncompliance. \n\n\n\nXXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX LEMON LAW BUYBACK MISREPORTED AS REPOSSESSION You are falsely reporting this account as a repossession, when in fact the vehicle was returned through a California Lemon Law buyback. \nI provided complete documentation of the manufacturers repurchase directly to XXXX XXXX and the credit bureaus. \nThe vehicle was returned voluntarily, processed through a legal manufacturer arbitration. \nThere was no default, no missed payment, and no repossession. \n\nThis false reporting has caused significant XXXX  to my credit profile. Your continued failure to correct it, despite multiple disputes and clear supporting documentation, constitutes : FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) Duty to update and correct information. \nFCRA XXXX ( b ) Failure to maintain reasonable procedures to ensure accuracy. \nPotential violation of California XXXX XXXX XXXX ( a ) Furnishing information with actual knowledge of error. \n\n\n\nXXXX. XXXX FRAUDULENT ACCOUNT you have failed to address or remove a fraudulent XXXX XXXX account that I did not open or authorize. Again : I did not sign for, initiate, or apply for any credit or purchase with XXXX. \nI never gave my ex ( or anyone ) permission to place accounts in my name. \nThis account is the result of identity theft and you were notified through a prior CFPB complaint. \n\nYour previous response ignored this account entirely, and you are still reporting it in violation of : FCRA XXXX Mandatory blocking of identity theft-related information. \nFCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( B ) Failure to delete unverifiable data. \nFCRA XXXX Willful noncompliance subject to civil liability. \n\n\n\nXXXX. SUSPICIOUS COLLECTION PATTERN & CONSUMER XXXX  There is an ongoing pattern where each time a collection or XXXX  item is removed, another appears within XXXX hours. This retaliatory-style reporting pattern is unacceptable, XXXX, and strongly indicative of either : XXXX  data handling, or malicious reinsertion in violation of FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( B ) ( ii ) ( which prohibits re-reporting deleted items without notifying the consumer in writing ) XXXX. Suspicious Pattern of Recycled or Retaliatory Collections Within XXXX week of having XXXX invalid collections removed from my credit report, XXXX new collections were posted by different agencies ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. According to my report, both were opened in XX/XX/XXXX, yet neither reported until XX/XX/XXXX, directly after prior deletions. \n\nThis pattern suggests either : Reinsertion of previously deleted or sold accounts without notice, in violation of FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( B ) ( ii ), or Intentional rotation of debt by XXXX or furnishers to bypass prior disputes. \n\nI demand : XXXX validation of both new collections, including the original creditor, full chain of ownership, and contract bearing my signature ( if any ), Written confirmation that neither tradeline was previously deleted or disputed under a different XXXX name, Full deletion of any unverifiable or previously disputed debt now appearing under a new agency. \n\nXXXX. XXXX XXXX Fraudulent Account Improperly Labeled XXXX XXXX XXXX The XXXXXXXX XXXX  account, opened on XX/XX/XXXX, is falsely reported as XXXX XXXX XXXX  with {$6700.00} written off. This is factually and legally incorrect. I did not pay XXXX, nor did I agree to settle any debt. \n\nI have previously notified the credit bureaus this account was fraudulent and even filed a lawsuit against XXXX over this matter. \nI never applied for or authorized this real estate transaction. \nI submitted an identity theft report, and you were legally required to block this account within XXXX business days under FCRA XXXX ( XXXX ). \nInstead, you allowed it to remain and now mischaracterize the account as settled, which XXXX  my credit and implies I accepted liability. \n\nThis is an inaccurate and defamatory reporting practice and a clear violation of : FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ) Furnishing information known to be false, FCRA XXXX Failing to block identity theft data, FCRA XXXX ( b ) Failing to ensure maximum possible accuracy. \n\nI demand this account be completely removed from all credit files with immediate effect. Any continued reporting after notice and legal action will be treated as willful noncompliance, and I reserve all rights to pursue damages. \nXXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX Multiple Unauthorized Accounts My Experian credit file is now showing XXXX separate loan accounts from XXXX XXXX XXXX, all opened within months of each other in XXXX. I have repeatedly stated I have never taken out a loan with XXXX  XXXX, and these accounts were not authorized by me. \n\nThe fact that there are XXXX closed accounts reporting from the same lender in such a short span is highly suspicious and not reflective of any legitimate lending pattern. This is either : XXXX by a XXXXXXXX XXXX using my identity multiple times, or Recycled or fragmented reporting by the lender to inflate XXXX  tradelines. \n\nI have already disputed these accounts and notified the credit bureaus they were unauthorized, yet they remain. Your failure to act violates : FCRA XXXX Failure to block identity theft accounts within XXXX business days, FCRA XXXX Failure to reasonably investigate consumer disputes, FCRA XXXX ( a ) Continuing to report inaccurate information knowingly. \n\nI demand all XXXX XXXX  accounts be immediately deleted from my credit file across all bureaus. If you or the furnisher claim they are legitimate, I request full validation, including : Application data, IP addresses and device signatures, Contracts bearing my signature. \n\nIf no such evidence is produced, these accounts must be permanently deleted. \n\nXXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX Unauthorized and Excessive Reporting My Experian credit report currently shows XXXX tradelines from XXXX XXXX XXXX, including : XXXX open line of credit ( XX/XX/XXXX ), XXXX closed XXXX  cards ( XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX ). \n\nI have never authorized any account with XXXX XXXX, and I have disputed this previously. These accounts appear to be : Fraudulent or opened without my consent, or Recycled debt or duplicative tradelines submitted under different formats. \n\nThis pattern is consistent with identity theft or irresponsible furnishing of information, and your continued reporting violates : FCRA XXXX Failure to block fraudulent tradelines, FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ) Reporting information with actual knowledge of errors, FCRA XXXX Inadequate reinvestigation of consumer disputes. \n\nI demand the full removal of all XXXX XXXX accounts unless the furnisher provides : Application and contract documentation bearing my actual signature, Device or IP logs proving I authorized these accounts, Full explanation of why multiple similar tradelines are appearing. \n\nXXXX. Identity Documents Already Provided I have included a clear copy of my government-issued drivers license and Social Security XXXX XXXX this dispute. Therefore, I am requesting that you do not email, call, or mail me requesting these documents again. \n\nI have fulfilled my obligation to verify my identity under FCRA XXXX and FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ). \n\nContinued or repeated requests for identity verification after valid documentation has been submitted will be treated as a willful delay tactic or noncompliance with your legal duty to investigate disputes in a timely manner. If this occurs, I will document it as part of a future legal claim under FCRA XXXX.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-06-17T16:22:36.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"946XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14129814","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-06-17T16:06:57.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Information belongs to someone else"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This <em>retaliatory</em>-style reporting pattern is unacceptable, XXXX, and strongly indicative of either : XXXX  data handling, or malicious reinsertion in violation of FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( B ) ( ii ) ( <em>which</em> prohibits re-reporting deleted items without notifying the consumer in writing ) XXXX."]},"sort":[7.6764894,"14129814"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14129714","_score":7.672269,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"This complaint serves as a formal demand under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA, XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) and Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act ( FACTA ) for the immediate removal and permanent correction of several accounts that are fraudulent, inaccurately reported, or verified in bad faith by your agencies. \n\n\n\nXXXX.XX/XX/XXXX FRAUDULENT ACCOUNT This account was opened fraudulently in my name by my ex while I was XXXX. I notified XXXX of this directly, and they were made fully aware that : I did not open or authorize this auto loan. \nI never possessed or signed for the vehicle. \nI even told XXXX the location of the car, and they subsequently recovered it. \nA police report was filed and submitted to all three credit bureaus. \n\nDespite this, Experian and TransUnion continue to report this account, nearly XXXX years later. Equifax previously removed it but has still failed to address related patterns of negligent reporting. \n\nThis is a textbook case of identity theft under FCRA XXXX, and your failure to permanently remove it after receiving official notice, police documentation, and confirmation from the lender is a willful violation of : FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ) Reporting known inaccurate information. \nFCRA XXXX Failure to reasonably investigate disputes. \nFCRA XXXX Civil liability for willful noncompliance. \n\n\n\nXXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX LEMON LAW BUYBACK MISREPORTED AS REPOSSESSION You are falsely reporting this account as a repossession, when in fact the vehicle was returned through a California Lemon Law buyback. \nI provided complete documentation of the manufacturers repurchase directly to XXXX XXXX and the credit bureaus. \nThe vehicle was returned voluntarily, processed through a legal manufacturer arbitration. \nThere was no default, no missed payment, and no repossession. \n\nThis false reporting has caused significant XXXX  to my credit profile. Your continued failure to correct it, despite multiple disputes and clear supporting documentation, constitutes : FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) Duty to update and correct information. \nFCRA XXXX ( b ) Failure to maintain reasonable procedures to ensure accuracy. \nPotential violation of California XXXX XXXX XXXX ( a ) Furnishing information with actual knowledge of error. \n\n\n\nXXXX. XXXX FRAUDULENT ACCOUNT you have failed to address or remove a fraudulent XXXX XXXX account that I did not open or authorize. Again : I did not sign for, initiate, or apply for any credit or purchase with XXXX. \nI never gave my ex ( or anyone ) permission to place accounts in my name. \nThis account is the result of identity theft and you were notified through a prior CFPB complaint. \n\nYour previous response ignored this account entirely, and you are still reporting it in violation of : FCRA XXXX Mandatory blocking of identity theft-related information. \nFCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( B ) Failure to delete unverifiable data. \nFCRA XXXX Willful noncompliance subject to civil liability. \n\n\n\nXXXX. SUSPICIOUS COLLECTION PATTERN & CONSUMER XXXX  There is an ongoing pattern where each time a collection or XXXX  item is removed, another appears within XXXX hours. This retaliatory-style reporting pattern is unacceptable, XXXX, and strongly indicative of either : XXXX  data handling, or malicious reinsertion in violation of FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( B ) ( ii ) ( which prohibits re-reporting deleted items without notifying the consumer in writing ) XXXX. Suspicious Pattern of Recycled or Retaliatory Collections Within XXXX week of having XXXX invalid collections removed from my credit report, XXXX new collections were posted by different agencies ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. According to my report, both were opened in XX/XX/XXXX, yet neither reported until XX/XX/XXXX, directly after prior deletions. \n\nThis pattern suggests either : Reinsertion of previously deleted or sold accounts without notice, in violation of FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( B ) ( ii ), or Intentional rotation of debt by XXXX or furnishers to bypass prior disputes. \n\nI demand : XXXX validation of both new collections, including the original creditor, full chain of ownership, and contract bearing my signature ( if any ), Written confirmation that neither tradeline was previously deleted or disputed under a different XXXX name, Full deletion of any unverifiable or previously disputed debt now appearing under a new agency. \n\nXXXX. XXXX XXXX Fraudulent Account Improperly Labeled XXXX XXXX XXXX The XXXXXXXX XXXX  account, opened on XX/XX/XXXX, is falsely reported as XXXX XXXX XXXX  with {$6700.00} written off. This is factually and legally incorrect. I did not pay XXXX, nor did I agree to settle any debt. \n\nI have previously notified the credit bureaus this account was fraudulent and even filed a lawsuit against XXXX over this matter. \nI never applied for or authorized this real estate transaction. \nI submitted an identity theft report, and you were legally required to block this account within XXXX business days under FCRA XXXX ( XXXX ). \nInstead, you allowed it to remain and now mischaracterize the account as settled, which XXXX  my credit and implies I accepted liability. \n\nThis is an inaccurate and defamatory reporting practice and a clear violation of : FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ) Furnishing information known to be false, FCRA XXXX Failing to block identity theft data, FCRA XXXX ( b ) Failing to ensure maximum possible accuracy. \n\nI demand this account be completely removed from all credit files with immediate effect. Any continued reporting after notice and legal action will be treated as willful noncompliance, and I reserve all rights to pursue damages. \nXXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX Multiple Unauthorized Accounts My Experian credit file is now showing XXXX separate loan accounts from XXXX XXXX XXXX, all opened within months of each other in XXXX. I have repeatedly stated I have never taken out a loan with XXXX  XXXX, and these accounts were not authorized by me. \n\nThe fact that there are XXXX closed accounts reporting from the same lender in such a short span is highly suspicious and not reflective of any legitimate lending pattern. This is either : XXXX by a XXXXXXXX XXXX using my identity multiple times, or Recycled or fragmented reporting by the lender to inflate XXXX  tradelines. \n\nI have already disputed these accounts and notified the credit bureaus they were unauthorized, yet they remain. Your failure to act violates : FCRA XXXX Failure to block identity theft accounts within XXXX business days, FCRA XXXX Failure to reasonably investigate consumer disputes, FCRA XXXX ( a ) Continuing to report inaccurate information knowingly. \n\nI demand all XXXX XXXX  accounts be immediately deleted from my credit file across all bureaus. If you or the furnisher claim they are legitimate, I request full validation, including : Application data, IP addresses and device signatures, Contracts bearing my signature. \n\nIf no such evidence is produced, these accounts must be permanently deleted. \n\nXXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX Unauthorized and Excessive Reporting My Experian credit report currently shows XXXX tradelines from XXXX XXXX XXXX, including : XXXX open line of credit ( XX/XX/XXXX ), XXXX closed XXXX  cards ( XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX ). \n\nI have never authorized any account with XXXX XXXX, and I have disputed this previously. These accounts appear to be : Fraudulent or opened without my consent, or Recycled debt or duplicative tradelines submitted under different formats. \n\nThis pattern is consistent with identity theft or irresponsible furnishing of information, and your continued reporting violates : FCRA XXXX Failure to block fraudulent tradelines, FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ) Reporting information with actual knowledge of errors, FCRA XXXX Inadequate reinvestigation of consumer disputes. \n\nI demand the full removal of all XXXX XXXX accounts unless the furnisher provides : Application and contract documentation bearing my actual signature, Device or IP logs proving I authorized these accounts, Full explanation of why multiple similar tradelines are appearing. \n\nXXXX. Identity Documents Already Provided I have included a clear copy of my government-issued drivers license and Social Security XXXX XXXX this dispute. Therefore, I am requesting that you do not email, call, or mail me requesting these documents again. \n\nI have fulfilled my obligation to verify my identity under FCRA XXXX and FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ). \n\nContinued or repeated requests for identity verification after valid documentation has been submitted will be treated as a willful delay tactic or noncompliance with your legal duty to investigate disputes in a timely manner. If this occurs, I will document it as part of a future legal claim under FCRA XXXX.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-06-17T16:22:40.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"946XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14129714","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-06-17T16:22:09.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Information belongs to someone else"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This <em>retaliatory</em>-style reporting pattern is unacceptable, XXXX, and strongly indicative of either : XXXX  data handling, or malicious reinsertion in violation of FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( B ) ( ii ) ( <em>which</em> prohibits re-reporting deleted items without notifying the consumer in writing ) XXXX."]},"sort":[7.672269,"14129714"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14129713","_score":7.625245,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"This complaint serves as a formal demand under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA, XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) and Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act ( FACTA ) for the immediate removal and permanent correction of several accounts that are fraudulent, inaccurately reported, or verified in bad faith by your agencies. \n\n\n\nXXXX.XX/XX/XXXX FRAUDULENT ACCOUNT This account was opened fraudulently in my name by my ex while I was XXXX. I notified XXXX of this directly, and they were made fully aware that : I did not open or authorize this auto loan. \nI never possessed or signed for the vehicle. \nI even told XXXX the location of the car, and they subsequently recovered it. \nA police report was filed and submitted to all three credit bureaus. \n\nDespite this, Experian and TransUnion continue to report this account, nearly XXXX years later. Equifax previously removed it but has still failed to address related patterns of negligent reporting. \n\nThis is a textbook case of identity theft under FCRA XXXX, and your failure to permanently remove it after receiving official notice, police documentation, and confirmation from the lender is a willful violation of : FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ) Reporting known inaccurate information. \nFCRA XXXX Failure to reasonably investigate disputes. \nFCRA XXXX Civil liability for willful noncompliance. \n\n\n\nXXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX LEMON LAW BUYBACK MISREPORTED AS REPOSSESSION You are falsely reporting this account as a repossession, when in fact the vehicle was returned through a California Lemon Law buyback. \nI provided complete documentation of the manufacturers repurchase directly to XXXX XXXX and the credit bureaus. \nThe vehicle was returned voluntarily, processed through a legal manufacturer arbitration. \nThere was no default, no missed payment, and no repossession. \n\nThis false reporting has caused significant XXXX  to my credit profile. Your continued failure to correct it, despite multiple disputes and clear supporting documentation, constitutes : FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) Duty to update and correct information. \nFCRA XXXX ( b ) Failure to maintain reasonable procedures to ensure accuracy. \nPotential violation of California XXXX XXXX XXXX ( a ) Furnishing information with actual knowledge of error. \n\n\n\nXXXX. XXXX FRAUDULENT ACCOUNT you have failed to address or remove a fraudulent XXXX XXXX account that I did not open or authorize. Again : I did not sign for, initiate, or apply for any credit or purchase with XXXX. \nI never gave my ex ( or anyone ) permission to place accounts in my name. \nThis account is the result of identity theft and you were notified through a prior CFPB complaint. \n\nYour previous response ignored this account entirely, and you are still reporting it in violation of : FCRA XXXX Mandatory blocking of identity theft-related information. \nFCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( B ) Failure to delete unverifiable data. \nFCRA XXXX Willful noncompliance subject to civil liability. \n\n\n\nXXXX. SUSPICIOUS COLLECTION PATTERN & CONSUMER XXXX  There is an ongoing pattern where each time a collection or XXXX  item is removed, another appears within XXXX hours. This retaliatory-style reporting pattern is unacceptable, XXXX, and strongly indicative of either : XXXX  data handling, or malicious reinsertion in violation of FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( B ) ( ii ) ( which prohibits re-reporting deleted items without notifying the consumer in writing ) XXXX. Suspicious Pattern of Recycled or Retaliatory Collections Within XXXX week of having XXXX invalid collections removed from my credit report, XXXX new collections were posted by different agencies ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. According to my report, both were opened in XX/XX/XXXX, yet neither reported until XX/XX/XXXX, directly after prior deletions. \n\nThis pattern suggests either : Reinsertion of previously deleted or sold accounts without notice, in violation of FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( B ) ( ii ), or Intentional rotation of debt by XXXX or furnishers to bypass prior disputes. \n\nI demand : XXXX validation of both new collections, including the original creditor, full chain of ownership, and contract bearing my signature ( if any ), Written confirmation that neither tradeline was previously deleted or disputed under a different XXXX name, Full deletion of any unverifiable or previously disputed debt now appearing under a new agency. \n\nXXXX. XXXX XXXX Fraudulent Account Improperly Labeled XXXX XXXX XXXX The XXXXXXXX XXXX  account, opened on XX/XX/XXXX, is falsely reported as XXXX XXXX XXXX  with {$6700.00} written off. This is factually and legally incorrect. I did not pay XXXX, nor did I agree to settle any debt. \n\nI have previously notified the credit bureaus this account was fraudulent and even filed a lawsuit against XXXX over this matter. \nI never applied for or authorized this real estate transaction. \nI submitted an identity theft report, and you were legally required to block this account within XXXX business days under FCRA XXXX ( XXXX ). \nInstead, you allowed it to remain and now mischaracterize the account as settled, which XXXX  my credit and implies I accepted liability. \n\nThis is an inaccurate and defamatory reporting practice and a clear violation of : FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ) Furnishing information known to be false, FCRA XXXX Failing to block identity theft data, FCRA XXXX ( b ) Failing to ensure maximum possible accuracy. \n\nI demand this account be completely removed from all credit files with immediate effect. Any continued reporting after notice and legal action will be treated as willful noncompliance, and I reserve all rights to pursue damages. \nXXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX Multiple Unauthorized Accounts My Experian credit file is now showing XXXX separate loan accounts from XXXX XXXX XXXX, all opened within months of each other in XXXX. I have repeatedly stated I have never taken out a loan with XXXX  XXXX, and these accounts were not authorized by me. \n\nThe fact that there are XXXX closed accounts reporting from the same lender in such a short span is highly suspicious and not reflective of any legitimate lending pattern. This is either : XXXX by a XXXXXXXX XXXX using my identity multiple times, or Recycled or fragmented reporting by the lender to inflate XXXX  tradelines. \n\nI have already disputed these accounts and notified the credit bureaus they were unauthorized, yet they remain. Your failure to act violates : FCRA XXXX Failure to block identity theft accounts within XXXX business days, FCRA XXXX Failure to reasonably investigate consumer disputes, FCRA XXXX ( a ) Continuing to report inaccurate information knowingly. \n\nI demand all XXXX XXXX  accounts be immediately deleted from my credit file across all bureaus. If you or the furnisher claim they are legitimate, I request full validation, including : Application data, IP addresses and device signatures, Contracts bearing my signature. \n\nIf no such evidence is produced, these accounts must be permanently deleted. \n\nXXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX Unauthorized and Excessive Reporting My Experian credit report currently shows XXXX tradelines from XXXX XXXX XXXX, including : XXXX open line of credit ( XX/XX/XXXX ), XXXX closed XXXX  cards ( XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX ). \n\nI have never authorized any account with XXXX XXXX, and I have disputed this previously. These accounts appear to be : Fraudulent or opened without my consent, or Recycled debt or duplicative tradelines submitted under different formats. \n\nThis pattern is consistent with identity theft or irresponsible furnishing of information, and your continued reporting violates : FCRA XXXX Failure to block fraudulent tradelines, FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ) Reporting information with actual knowledge of errors, FCRA XXXX Inadequate reinvestigation of consumer disputes. \n\nI demand the full removal of all XXXX XXXX accounts unless the furnisher provides : Application and contract documentation bearing my actual signature, Device or IP logs proving I authorized these accounts, Full explanation of why multiple similar tradelines are appearing. \n\nXXXX. Identity Documents Already Provided I have included a clear copy of my government-issued drivers license and Social Security XXXX XXXX this dispute. Therefore, I am requesting that you do not email, call, or mail me requesting these documents again. \n\nI have fulfilled my obligation to verify my identity under FCRA XXXX and FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ). \n\nContinued or repeated requests for identity verification after valid documentation has been submitted will be treated as a willful delay tactic or noncompliance with your legal duty to investigate disputes in a timely manner. If this occurs, I will document it as part of a future legal claim under FCRA XXXX.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-06-17T16:22:37.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"946XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14129713","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-06-17T16:22:09.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Information belongs to someone else"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This <em>retaliatory</em>-style reporting pattern is unacceptable, XXXX, and strongly indicative of either : XXXX  data handling, or malicious reinsertion in violation of FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( B ) ( ii ) ( <em>which</em> prohibits re-reporting deleted items without notifying the consumer in writing ) XXXX."]},"sort":[7.625245,"14129713"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"9680112","_score":7.5326033,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"Formal Complaint of Fraudulent Denial, Unauthorized Activity, Identity Theft, and Deceptive Practices Acct. Ending XXXX ( Alleging Identity Theft ( 18 U.S.C. 1028 ) & Financial Institution Fraud ( 18 U.S.C. 1344 ) ) I am writing to formally lodge a complaint regarding your XX/XX/XXXX, denial of my fraud claim concerning PayPal Credit account ending in XXXX. Your denial not only contradicts the established facts detailed below and the evidence submitted herewith but also violates my consumer rights under the Fair Credit Billing Act ( FCBA ) and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), while revealing a pattern of deceptive practices, identity theft, and financial institution fraud as defined under 18 U.S.C. 1028, 1029, and 1344. \n\nUnauthorized Account Activities and Fraudulent Balance Transfer On XX/XX/XXXX, Synchrony Bank unlawfully closed my account ( ending in XXXX ) and opened a new one ( ending in XXXX ) without my consent, transferring a disputed balance of {$2800.00}. This action followed Synchrony 's denial of my fraud claim on XX/XX/XXXX, disregarding the fact that the account ending in XXXX was closed at my request on XX/XX/XXXX, due to fraudulent activity. \n\nIdentity Theft, Computer Fraud, and Wire Fraud This unauthorized account opening and balance transfer constitute identity theft under 18 U.S.C. 1028. Additionally, as PayPal Credit is a digital line of credit and these actions were executed through PayPal 's systems, I assert this also constitutes computer fraud ( 18 U.S.C. 1030 ) and wire fraud ( 18 U.S.C. 1343 ). \n\nTacit Admission of Fraud and Circumvention of Consumer Protections The transferred balance includes the fraudulent transactions I disputed, for which I am due a refund exceeding this amount. This unauthorized transfer is a tacit admission of fraud and an attempt to circumvent my rights under the PayPal User Agreement, PayPal Credit Account Agreement, Fair Credit Billing Act ( FCBA ), and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ). \n\nBilling Errors under the Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ) : This action constitutes a billing error as defined in 1026.13 ( a ) of TILA, as it involves : An extension of credit not intended for me. \nA failure to properly identify the extension of credit. \nBy acknowledging the fraudulent activity, Synchrony Bank has invalidated any alleged debt associated with these transactions. \nSynchrony Bank 's Unlawful Retaliation, Deceptive Practices, Unresolved Refunds, & Legal Violations : XXXX Timeline of Events and Violations : XX/XX/XXXX : Duplicate billing for a {$530.00} XXXX purchase ( Transaction IDs : XXXX, XXXX ). Violation : 12 CFR 1026.12 ( a ) Identification of Transactions. \nXX/XX/XXXX : Filed dispute with PayPal ( XXXX XXXX ), denied. \nXX/XX/XXXX : XXXX issued partial refund ( {$110.00} ), not reflected on statement. \nXX/XX/XXXX : XXXX XXXX Washington, XXXX approved full refund ( {$410.00} ), not received. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX : PayPal denied claim again, then issued {$530.00} provisional credit. Violation : 12 CFR 1026.12 ( b ) Prompt Posting of Payments and Credits. \nXX/XX/XXXX : Unauthorized {$530.00} promotional financing transaction posted. Violation : 12 CFR 1026.12 - Treatment of Payments. \nXX/XX/XXXX : referenced multiple transactions and denied the dispute, stating that additional documentation from the merchant supported the charges. \nXXXX XXXX : Filed CFPB complaints ( XXXX, XXXX ), notifying Synchrony of FCBA, FCRA, and TILA violations. Synchrony misrepresented provisional credit ( {$530.00}, Transaction ID : XXXX, applied on XX/XX/XXXX ) as a refund. Violation : 12 CFR 1026.13 ( c ) - Procedures if Billing Error Occurred as Asserted. \nXX/XX/XXXX : Synchrony Bank 's CFPB response acknowledged the XX/XX/XXXX credit as provisional, pending investigation. \nXX/XX/XXXX : Periodic statement failed to reflect the provisional credit and the unauthorized XX/XX/XXXX charge remained as a deferred interest promotional charge, despite the alleged resolution of errors with the XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX : PayPal Credit/Synchrony confirmed disputes remained unresolved. \n\nXXXX Timeline of Events and Violations : XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX : Communicated with Synchrony Bank about unreceived notices and unresolved issues. \nXX/XX/XXXX : Statement showed disputed amount of {$2800.00}, with PAYMENT OF AMOUNT IN DISPUTE NOT REQUIRED. \nXX/XX/XXXX : Synchrony Bank reversed {$380.00} in interest charges, admitting errors. \nXX/XX/XXXX : Synchrony Banks internal records reference financial error handling and a full balance dispute. \nXX/XX/XXXX : XXXX confirmed entitlement to a {$530.00} refund. \nXX/XX/XXXX : Synchrony Bank sent a misleading response letter, omitting the ongoing dispute and errors. \nXX/XX/XXXX : Synchrony Bank deceptively offered a credit line increase. \nXX/XX/XXXX : Exercised right to withhold payment under Regulation Z ( 12 CFR XXXX ) due to unresolved fraudulent charges, unauthorized chargebacks, and accrual of fees and interest on disputed amounts. \nXX/XX/XXXX : Sent certified demand letters to Synchrony Bank outlining violations and demanding resolution. \nXX/XX/XXXX : Synchrony Bank reported a {$53.00} past-due balance despite the ongoing dispute and right to withhold payment. \nXX/XX/XXXX : Filed complaints with the CFPB ( XXXX ) and OCC regarding Synchrony Banks practices. \nXX/XX/XXXX : Synchrony Bank closed the account ( ending in XXXX ) in retaliation for invoking consumer rights, falsely reporting it as closed at the consumers request. This retaliatory closure violates the Equal Credit Opportunity Act ( ECOA ) and caused financial hardship by removing access to a {$5800.00} credit line. \nXX/XX/XXXX : Filed an additional CFPB complaint ( XXXX ). \nXX/XX/XXXX : Filed a complaint with the OCC ( XXXX # XXXX ). \nXX/XX/XXXX : Synchrony Bank responded to the CFPB complaint. \nXX/XX/XXXX : Filed complaints with the CFPB ( XXXX ) and XXXX ( XXXX : XXXX ). \nXX/XX/XXXX : Initiated arbitration against PayPal and Synchrony Bank ( XXXX Case No. XXXX ). \nXX/XX/XXXX : Synchrony Banks XXXX response admitted to adjustments but falsely claimed dispute resolution. \nXX/XX/XXXX : Late adjustments acknowledged by the CFPB ( Case XXXX ) violate the Utah Consumer Credit Code ( UCCC ). \n\nAdditional Complaints : FTC : Record Number XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX PayPal Phishing and Fraud Attempts ), Reportfraud.gov Confirmation XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ) Financial Harm, Emotional Distress, and Violations of Consumer Rights : Synchrony Bank 's actions have caused significant financial hardship and emotional distress. Their retaliatory account closure removed access to a {$5800.00} credit line, preventing me from covering legitimate expenses. They failed to issue refunds totaling {$2900.00} for canceled services, as required by the PayPal User Agreement. Their disregard for my consumer rights and misrepresentation of the account closure constitute deceptive and unfair business practices. \nSynchrony Bank 's repeated violations of consumer protection laws, including the FCBA, FDCPA, and ECOA, along with their failure to follow proper procedures for refunds and dispute resolution as outlined in the PayPal User Agreement and their own terms, warrant immediate investigation and remediation. \n\nXXXX XXXX of Events and Violations : XX/XX/XXXX : Synchrony Bank refunded {$610.00} in late fees and interest but failed to disclose the full extent of adjustments or provide updated statements on the closed account. \nXX/XX/XXXX : Synchrony Bank partially acknowledged errors by removing some delinquencies but did not address missing refunds and unauthorized charges. \nXX/XX/XXXX : Synchrony Bank sent a collection notice for the disputed balance, violating rights under the FCBA. \nXX/XX/XXXX : Sent detailed dispute letter demanding cessation of collections, credit report corrections, and other legal remedies. \nXX/XX/XXXX : Synchrony Bank responded inconsistently, claiming to cease collections while also stating continued billing statements would be sent. \nXX/XX/XXXX : PayPal representative confirmed a single charge reversal but couldn't locate processed refunds, contradicting XXXX and Synchrony 's claims. \nXX/XX/XXXX : Synchrony Bank denied claims and refused to reopen the account. \nXX/XX/XXXX : XXXX updated credit report, noting the dispute but not removing negative reporting, causing a significant XXXXredit score drop due to falsely reported delinquency. \nXX/XX/XXXX : Spoke with XXXX XXXX from Synchrony Bank 's Office of the President. \nXX/XX/XXXX : Sent an email to XXXX XXXX with additional documentation and reiterated demands. \nXX/XX/XXXX : XXXX credit report showed inaccurate late payments and delinquency status. \nXX/XX/XXXX : Filed multiple CRA disputes regarding unauthorized activity and identity fraud. \nXX/XX/XXXX : Synchrony Bank issued a denial letter for the fraud claim, falsely stating the account was open and active. \nXX/XX/XXXX : Synchrony Bank transferred the disputed balance to a new account ( ending in XXXX ) without authorization, constituting identity theft and an attempt to circumvent consumer protections XX/XX/XXXX : Received the denial letter ( dated XX/XX/XXXX ) from Synchrony Bank. This unauthorized transfer invalidates any alleged payment obligations. \nThis continued pattern of misconduct by Synchrony Bank demonstrates a blatant disregard for consumer rights and fair business practices. \n\nKey Points of Misconduct : No Refunds Received : Despite promises and acknowledgments from both XXXX and Synchrony Bank dating back to XX/XX/XXXX, no refunds for the fraudulent transactions totaling {$2900.00} have been processed or credited to my account. This failure to provide refunds for disputed transactions is a clear violation of the FCBA ( 15 U.S.C. 1666 - 1666j ), which outlines timely resolution of billing errors, including refundU.Sm Unauthorized & Duplicate Charges Unreimbursed : The unauthorized transaction reported on XX/XX/XXXX, and subsequent duplicate charges totaling {$1400.00} remain unaddressed and unreimbursed. This constitutes a continued violation of the FCBA ( 15 U.S.C. 1666 ) and may also violate state laws related to fraud and unjust enrichment. \nTime-Barred Collections & False Delinquencies : Synchrony Bank 's reporting of delinquencies from XX/XX/XXXX onwards is a direct violation of the FCBA ( 15 U.S.C. 1666 ) and the FDCPA ( 15 U.S.C. 1692g ). My formal dispute was initiated on XX/XX/XXXX, rendering any subsequent collection attempts and negative credit reporting illegitimate. Furthermore, the bank 's claim to have ceased collections on XX/XX/XXXX, while continuing to report delinquencies, is a deceptive and harmful misrepresentation, potentially violating Regulation F ( 12 CFR Part 1005 ). \nUnsolicited Credit Line Increase Followed by Closure : The unsolicited credit line increase offer in XX/XX/XXXX, followed by the retaliatory closure of my account in XX/XX/XXXX, demonstrates bad faith and a deliberate attempt to manipulate my credit standing. These actions violate the FCBA, TILA, and potentially state laws. The bank 's failure to disclose this closure in their XX/XX/XXXX denial letter is a further violation of the FDCPA ( 15 U.S.C. 1692e ). \nInsufficient Validation, Acknowledged Errors, and Selective Reporting : Synchrony Bank has acknowledged errors in their reporting and account handling, yet they have failed to rectify the full extent of the discrepancies, including the fraudulent transactions and entitled refunds. Their selective credit reporting violates the FCRA 's mandates for accurate and complete information ( 15 U.S.C. 1681i ). Moreover, their continued collection attempts on a disputed and invalid debt, despite acknowledging errors, demonstrate a blatant disregard for consumer protection laws. \nProhibited Adjustments After Account Closure and Unauthorized Chargebacks : Synchrony Bank 's numerous account and interest reversals after my account was closed are prohibited under 12 CFR 1026.13 and 1005, rendering any claim to the disputed amounts invalid. Furthermore, charging back the full transaction as a new deferred promotional interest charge instead of properly resolving the billing error is a deceptive practice. The remaining debt consists of chargebacks that were incorrectly processed as new, unauthorized purchases, for which I am not liable. \nViolations of the Fair Credit Billing Act ( FCBA ) : Your ongoing collection attempts after my formal FCBA dispute invocation is a clear violation of the law. Violations : FCBA ( 15 U.S.C. 1666 ). \nViolations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) : Your collection tactics after the dispute, despite awareness of the time-barred nature of the alleged debt, constitute unlawful harassment and abuse under the FDCPA. Violations : FDCPA ( 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq. ) Credit Damage : Your actions caused a XXXX drop in my credit score ( documented evidence available ). This constitutes significant harm. Violations : FCRA ( 15 U.S.C. 1681n, 1681o ). \n\nWillful Misrepresentation, Deceptive Practices, & FCRA Violations : Synchrony Banks actions demonstrate a pattern of deception and violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). \n\nFalse Reporting and Inaccurate Account Status : Despite my account ( ending in XXXX ) being closed due to fraud on XX/XX/XXXX, Synchrony Bank falsely reported delinquencies and claimed the account was open and active, contradicting their records and my PayPal Credit dashboard. This violates FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 1 ), which prohibits furnishing inaccurate data to credit bureaus. \nMisleading Payment Obligations : Synchrony Bank repeatedly asserted my responsibility to repay the disputed balance despite the account closure and no payment obligation, violating the FDCPA and demonstrating deceptive practices to coerce payment on an invalid debt. \nMultiple Account Closures & Conflicting Information : The banks contradictory actions regarding account closures, claiming to have replaced a closed account, create confusion and indicate deceptive practices. \nWillful and Knowing Violations : Internal documents from XX/XX/XXXX, confirm Synchrony Banks knowledge of ongoing errors and unresolved disputes. Despite this, they continued furnishing inaccurate information and engaging in deceptive practices, violating FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) & ( B ).\n\nThese deliberate misrepresentations highlight Synchrony Banks disregard for accurate credit reporting and their intent to deceive. I demand an immediate investigation, correction of all inaccurate reporting, removal of fraudulent accounts, and cessation of collection efforts. \n\nSpecific Violations & Contradictory Denial : 1. Unauthorized Account Closure & Transfer : Synchrony Bank 's closure of account XXXX ( due to fraud on XX/XX/XXXX ) and unauthorized opening/transfer to a new account ( XXXX ) constitute flagrant violations of my consumer rights under the FCBA and ECOA. \nXXXX. Lack of Notification & Consent : Failure to notify me of these actions violates industry standards and consumer protection laws. \nXXXX. Erroneous & Fraudulent Balance Transfer : The transfer of the disputed balance, including fraudulent transactions, perpetuates the fraud and attempts to hold me liable for disputed charges. \nXXXX. Misleading Denial & False Representations : The XX/XX/XXXX denial letter falsely claimed the account was open and active, contradicting documented closure due to fraud. The assertion of authorized transactions and a new account agreement is a blatant misrepresentation. \n5. FCBA Rights Violation : Synchrony Bank ignored my XX/XX/XXXX assertion of FCBA rights to dispute and withheld payment, violating the core of the FCBA ( 15 U.S.C. 1666, 1026.12, 1026.13 ). \n6. Synchrony Bank 's FDCPA & UDAP Violations, and FCRA Violations : 7. Synchrony Bank engaged in deceptive and unfair practices, violating the FDCPA, potentially UDAAP, and the FCRA : 8. False Representation of Debt : Misrepresented the debt 's character, amount, and legal status ( 15 U.S.C. 807 ( 2 ) ( A ) ). \n9. Misleading Communication : Used false/misleading representations in communications ( 15 U.S.C. 807 ( 10 ) ).\n\n10. Unfair Practices : Collected interest and fees on disputed amounts, exceeding FCBA limits ( 15 U.S.C. 808 ( 1 ) ).\n\n11. Communication of False Credit Information : Reported inaccurate information to credit bureaus, harming my creditworthiness ( 15 U.S.C. 623 ( a ) ).\n\nFailure to Conduct a Reasonable Investigation : Failed to investigate disputed delinquencies ( 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) ). \n\nAdditional Evidence of Misconduct : Internal documents confirm Synchrony Bank 's awareness of unresolved disputes since XXXX. \nDelayed disclosures and misleading statements regarding reversals and dispute resolutions. \nRetaliatory account closure under false pretenses, unauthorized account replacement, and transfer of disputed balance. \nFailure to process promised refunds and continued pursuit of unauthorized charges. \nUnauthorized account replacement and conflicting account status, demonstrating deceptive practices and raising security concerns. \nProhibited adjustments after account closure ( 12 CFR 1026.13 and 1005 ), invalidating claims to disputed amounts. \n\nInvalidation of Debt, False Reporting, & Credit Harm : Synchrony Bank 's unauthorized account closure and balance transfer invalidate any claim to the disputed amount. Their actions during arbitration, misrepresenting facts and falsely reporting delinquencies, demonstrate bad faith and deceptive practices. These actions, contradicting the arbitrator 's decision, confirm the legitimacy of my initial dispute. \nSynchrony Bank 's unlawful practices have caused substantial financial harm, including a documented loss of nearly {$25000.00} in available credit. I demand immediate cessation of collection activity, correction of inaccurate reporting, and compensation for the financial harm suffered. \n\nSynchrony Bank 's Refusal to Reopen Account & Subsequent Contradictory Actions : Despite my repeated requests, Synchrony Bank refused to reopen the closed account ( ending in XXXX ) to address the fraud and repair my credit. However, they then opened a new account ( ending in XXXX ) without authorization and transferred the disputed balance, contradicting their previous stance. This unauthorized action, while claiming to be a replacement, serves no purpose as the new account also appears closed. This contradictory behavior raises concerns about Synchrony Bank 's motives and good faith, highlighting their prioritization of financial interests over consumer protection.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-08-02T02:06:06.000Z","issue":"Getting a credit card","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"022XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"9680112","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL","date_received":"2024-08-02T01:52:32.000Z","state":"MA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Card opened without my consent or knowledge"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Failure to Conduct a Reasonable <em>Investigation</em> : Failed to <em>investigate</em> disputed delinquencies ( 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) ). \n\nAdditional Evidence of Misconduct : Internal documents confirm Synchrony Bank 's awareness of unresolved disputes since XXXX. \nDelayed disclosures and misleading statements regarding reversals and dispute resolutions. \n<em>Retaliatory</em> account closure under false pretenses, unauthorized account replacement, and transfer of disputed balance."]},"sort":[7.5326033,"9680112"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":33,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":33}]}},"product":{"doc_count":33,"product":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":14,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":14}]}},{"key":"Credit card","doc_count":6,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","doc_count":5}]}},{"key":"Checking or savings account","doc_count":5,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Checking account","doc_count":5}]}},{"key":"Debt collection","doc_count":4,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit card debt","doc_count":2},{"key":"Rental debt","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Mortgage","doc_count":2,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"FHA mortgage","doc_count":2}]}},{"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":"Prepaid card","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"General-purpose prepaid card","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"issue":{"doc_count":33,"issue":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Incorrect information on your report","doc_count":10,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Account information incorrect","doc_count":6},{"key":"Information belongs to someone else","doc_count":3},{"key":"Account status incorrect","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","doc_count":4,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Debt is not yours","doc_count":4}]}},{"key":"Managing an account","doc_count":4,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Banking errors","doc_count":1},{"key":"Deposits and withdrawals","doc_count":1},{"key":"Funds not handled or disbursed as instructed","doc_count":1},{"key":"Problem using a debit or ATM card","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Problem with personal statement of dispute","doc_count":1},{"key":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Trouble during payment process","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Trying to communicate with the company to fix an issue while managing or servicing your loan","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Closing an 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":"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":"Credit monitoring or identity theft protection services","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Billing dispute for services","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":"Getting a credit card","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Card opened without my consent or knowledge","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Improper use of your report","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Reporting company used your report improperly","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Other","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Problem with a purchase or transfer","doc_count":1,"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":"Problem with fraud alerts or security freezes","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Trouble using your card","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit card company won't increase or decrease your credit limit","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":33,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":32},{"key":"No","doc_count":1}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":33,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":23},{"key":"Closed with non-monetary relief","doc_count":6},{"key":"Closed with monetary relief","doc_count":3},{"key":"Untimely response","doc_count":1}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":33,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":33}]}},"company":{"doc_count":33,"company":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","doc_count":4},{"key":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","doc_count":3},{"key":"CLGF Holdco 1, LLC","doc_count":2},{"key":"EQUIFAX, INC.","doc_count":2},{"key":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","doc_count":2},{"key":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","doc_count":2},{"key":"AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY","doc_count":1},{"key":"AXOS FINANCIAL, INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Aldridge PIte Haan, LLP","doc_count":1},{"key":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"BARCLAYS BANK DELAWARE","doc_count":1},{"key":"Block, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Bureau of Accounts Control","doc_count":1},{"key":"CITIBANK, N.A.","doc_count":1},{"key":"CREDIT ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"Credit Karma, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"DISCOVER BANK","doc_count":1},{"key":"GOLDMAN SACHS BANK USA","doc_count":1},{"key":"LoanCare, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","doc_count":1},{"key":"Paypal Holdings, Inc","doc_count":1},{"key":"RELIANCE FIRST CAPITAL LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"Rausch Sturm LLP","doc_count":1},{"key":"SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL","doc_count":1}]}},"state":{"doc_count":33,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"CA","doc_count":6},{"key":"MI","doc_count":6},{"key":"FL","doc_count":5},{"key":"TX","doc_count":3},{"key":"NY","doc_count":2},{"key":"PA","doc_count":2},{"key":"WA","doc_count":2},{"key":"AL","doc_count":1},{"key":"IL","doc_count":1},{"key":"KY","doc_count":1},{"key":"MA","doc_count":1},{"key":"MO","doc_count":1},{"key":"NJ","doc_count":1},{"key":"NV","doc_count":1}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":33,"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":16},{"key":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","doc_count":1}]}},"tags":{"doc_count":33,"tags":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Older American","doc_count":2},{"key":"Servicemember","doc_count":2}]}}},"_meta":{"license":"CC0","last_updated":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","last_indexed":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","total_record_count":16441818,"is_data_stale":false,"has_data_issue":false,"break_points":{"2":[7.533083,"9680112"]}}}