{"took":82,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":120,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17065274","_score":20.295399,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"Navy Federal Credit Union withheld provisional credits, created internal adjustments, and applied unauthorized offsets after disputes were filed. \n\nBetween XXXX and XX/XX/year>, I filed multiple disputes ( XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, etc. ). Instead of issuing provisional credits within the 10-day period required by Regulation E, Navy Federal appears to have withheld or redirected those credits internally to offset other account balances, effectively depriving me of access to my own funds. \n\nI also found evidence of wire transfers, unauthorized holds, and account adjustments that were never reversed. My total loss, combining missing provisional credits and unrecognized transfers, is {$14000.00}. \n\nPatterns identical to mine appear in consumer complaints to the XXXX  and CFPB involving adjustment-DR, account made negative, and missing provisional credit. \n\nThis behavior suggests systemic mishandling of disputes and internal offsets. I request a full regulatory review of Navy Federals dispute-handling and provisional credit practices, especially for members whose accounts became negative or were closed after business activity.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-07T00:09:03.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"89074","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17065274","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","date_received":"2025-11-06T23:59:13.000Z","state":"NV","company_public_response":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","sub_issue":"Funds not handled or disbursed as instructed"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Navy Federal <em>Credit</em> Union withheld <em>provisional</em> <em>credits</em>, created internal adjustments, and applied unauthorized offsets after disputes were filed. \n\nBetween <em>XXXX</em> and XX/XX/year>, I filed multiple disputes ( <em>XXXX</em>, <em>XXXX</em>, <em>XXXX</em>, <em>XXXX</em>, etc. ). Instead of issuing <em>provisional</em> <em>credits</em> <em>within</em> the 10-day period required by Regulation E, Navy Federal appears to have withheld or redirected <em>those</em> <em>credits</em> internally to offset other <em>account</em> balances, effectively depriving me of access to my own funds."],"product":["Checking or savings <em>account</em>"],"issue":["Managing an <em>account</em>"],"company":["NAVY FEDERAL <em>CREDIT</em> UNION"],"sub_product":["Checking <em>account</em>"]},"sort":[20.295399,"17065274"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13777961","_score":19.58722,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"On XX/XX/year>, I filed a dispute with Chime regarding an unauthorized transaction and requested a provisional credit in accordance with Regulation E. I do not have a Credit Builder account, so I am not subject to the 20-business-day investigation timeline that applies to those new accounts. Under Regulation E, I should have received a provisional credit within 10 business days of my dispute. \nI contacted Chime again on XX/XX/XXXX to express the urgency of the matter and request an expedited resolution. I followed up again on XX/XX/XXXX, and was informed that someone might reach out, but I have not received any update or the required provisional credit. I also informed Chime representatives that their delay was in violation of Regulation E and their own terms and conditions.\n\nIt has now been more than 10 business days since I reported the issue, and Chime has failed to issue a provisional credit or complete the investigation. I believe this is a clear violation of Regulation E ( 12 CFR 1005.11 ), which protects consumers from delays in resolving unauthorized transaction disputes. \nI am requesting that Chime immediately issue the provisional credit owed to me, provide a written update regarding the investigation, and bring their practices into compliance with federal consumer protection laws.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-05-30T02:07:59.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"44035","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13777961","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Chime Financial Inc","date_received":"2025-05-30T01:57:18.000Z","state":"OH","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Funds not handled or disbursed as instructed"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["On XX/XX/year>, I filed a dispute with Chime regarding an unauthorized transaction and requested a <em>provisional</em> <em>credit</em> in accordance with Regulation E. I do not have a <em>Credit</em> Builder <em>account</em>, so I am not subject to the 20-business-day investigation timeline that applies to <em>those</em> new <em>accounts</em>. Under Regulation E, I should have received a <em>provisional</em> <em>credit</em> <em>within</em> 10 business days of my dispute."],"product":["Checking or savings <em>account</em>"],"issue":["Managing an <em>account</em>"],"sub_product":["Checking <em>account</em>"]},"sort":[19.58722,"13777961"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16635971","_score":19.336763,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"The rules around provisional credit for disputes on debit cards, like the Cash App XXXX XXXX, are governed by a federal regulation in the U.S. called Regulation XXXX ( XXXX XXXX ). \nHere 's a breakdown of the key points regarding provisional credit under XXXX XXXX for XXXX XXXX Transfer ( EFT ) errors, which includes unauthorized or incorrect debit card transactions : XXXX. XXXX XXXX : A financial institution has XXXX business days from receiving the notice of error to complete its investigation. \nXXXX. XXXX XXXX & XXXX XXXX : If the institution can not complete the investigation within those XXXX business days, it can take up to 45 days ( or 90 days in certain cases, such as point-of-sale debit card transactions, foreign transactions, or new accounts ). \nCrucially, to use this extended timeframe ( beyond XXXX business days ), the institution must provisionally credit the consumer 's account in the amount of the alleged error within the initial XXXX business days of receiving the notice. \nIn short, based on federal regulation ( XXXX XXXX ) : If the institution takes more than XXXX business days to investigate my dispute, they are generally required to issue a provisional credit within that XXXX window. \nIf they resolve the dispute within XXXX business days, they are not required to issue a provisional credit. \nWhat Cash App 's statement suggests : Cash App 's response ( \" XXXX credits aren't guaranteed or automatictimelines can vary ... '' ) is technically correct in that a credit isn't automatic if they can resolve the dispute quickly ( within XXXX business days ). However, if they need the full extended time ( up to XXXX or 90 days ), they are required by Regulation XXXX to issue the provisional credit within XXXX business days. \nMy situation : i filed the dispute on XX/XX/XXXX. \nIt is now XX/XX/XXXX. \nCounting business days ( XXXX, excluding federal holidays ), the XXXX window has passed by XX/XX/XXXX at latest. \nSince your dispute is \" still under review '' after the XXXX period, and they haven't issued provisional credit, they engaged in illegal tactics.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-10-16T11:33:25.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"33027","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"16635971","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Block, Inc.","date_received":"2025-10-16T11:20:47.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Problem using a debit or ATM card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Crucially, to use this extended timeframe ( beyond <em>XXXX</em> business days ), the institution must <em>provisionally</em> <em>credit</em> the <em>consumer</em> 's <em>account</em> in the amount of the alleged error <em>within</em> the initial <em>XXXX</em> business days of receiving the notice. \nIn short, based on federal regulation ( <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> ) : If the institution takes more than <em>XXXX</em> business days to investigate my dispute, they are generally required to issue a <em>provisional</em> <em>credit</em> <em>within</em> that <em>XXXX</em> window."],"product":["Checking or savings <em>account</em>"],"issue":["Managing an <em>account</em>"],"sub_product":["Checking <em>account</em>"]},"sort":[19.336763,"16635971"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"21283530","_score":19.293945,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"b\"Back on XXXX XXXX I found out that on my business debit card with Bank Of America with the following account XXXX XXXX XXXX  had been lost misused unauthorized activity on the following dates XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  there were XXXX  unauthorized withdrawals that I reported each found XXXX  for total of XXXX XXXX Ive yet to even get an provisional credit from bank at all and my card was not in my possession either being XXXX XXXX I did lose my card or being XXXX  known for lots of theft via skimming ... I reported this to BOA on XXXX XXXX directly the XXXXh day \\n XXXX Procedures for resolving errors.\\nUnder Regulation E, financial institutions must investigate consumer electronic fund transfer (EFT) disputes promptly, generally within XXXX  business days of receiving notice of an error. If the investigation takes longer, the institution must provide provisional credit to the consumer's account within those XXXX  days for the amount of the alleged error. \\nConsumer Financial Protection Bureau\"","date_sent_to_company":"2026-04-15T22:55:49.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"97213","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"21283530","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2026-04-15T22:49:31.000Z","state":"OR","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Deposits and withdrawals"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I reported this to BOA on <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> directly the XXXXh day \\n <em>XXXX</em> Procedures for resolving errors.\\nUnder Regulation E, financial institutions must investigate <em>consumer</em> electronic fund transfer (EFT) disputes promptly, generally <em>within</em> <em>XXXX</em>  business days of receiving notice of an error. If the investigation takes longer, the institution must provide <em>provisional</em> <em>credit</em> to the <em>consumer</em>'s <em>account</em> <em>within</em> <em>those</em> <em>XXXX</em>  days for the amount of the alleged error. \\n<em>Consumer</em> Financial Protection Bureau\""],"product":["Checking or savings <em>account</em>"],"issue":["Managing an <em>account</em>"],"sub_product":["Checking <em>account</em>"],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the <em>consumer</em> and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response"]},"sort":[19.293945,"21283530"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13420680","_score":18.77016,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"I am filing a complaint against Navy Federal Credit Union for failing to comply with Regulation XXXX of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act. \n\nOn XX/XX/2025, I reported unauthorized transactions totaling {$590.00} on my account. I promptly submitted all required documentation and fully cooperated with XXXX XXXX investigation. \n\nUnder 12 CFR 1005.11 ( c ) ( 2 ) ( i ), if a financial institution can not complete its investigation within XXXX business days, it must provisionally credit the consumers account for the amount of the alleged error to ensure full access to those funds during the investigation. As of today, XX/XX/2025, it has been XXXX business days, and I have not received a provisional credit nor a valid written explanation of denial or delay. \n\nXXXX XXXX has responded by stating that \" provisional credit is not issued during the appeal process, '' which is inconsistent with XXXX XXXX This delay is causing significant financial hardship. \n\nTheir most recent message declared that they consider this matter closed without resolving the issue, crediting my account, or offering legal justification for their failure to act in accordance with federal law.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-05-09T20:00:52.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"70737","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13420680","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","date_received":"2025-05-09T19:52:46.000Z","state":"LA","company_public_response":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Under 12 CFR 1005.11 ( c ) ( 2 ) ( i ), if a financial institution can not complete its investigation <em>within</em> <em>XXXX</em> business days, it must <em>provisionally</em> <em>credit</em> the <em>consumers</em> <em>account</em> for the amount of the alleged error to ensure full access to <em>those</em> funds during the investigation. As of today, <em>XX/XX</em>/2025, it has been <em>XXXX</em> business days, and I have not received a <em>provisional</em> <em>credit</em> nor a valid written explanation of denial or delay."],"product":["<em>Credit</em> card"],"company":["NAVY FEDERAL <em>CREDIT</em> UNION"],"sub_product":["General-purpose <em>credit</em> card or charge card"],"sub_issue":["<em>Credit</em> card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"]},"sort":[18.77016,"13420680"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"21319646","_score":18.713749,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"b\"Back on XXXX XXXX  I found out that on my business debit card with Bank Of America with the following account XXXX XXXX XXXX had been lost misused unauthorized activity on the following dates XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  there were 3 unauthorized withdrawals that I reported each found XXXX  for total of XXXX . Ive yet to even get an provisional credit from bank at all and my card was not in my possession either being XXXX XXXX I did lose my card or being XXXX  known for lots of theft via skimming ... I reported this to BOA on XXXX XXXX directly the XXXX  day\\n XXXX Procedures for resolving errors.\\nUnder Regulation E, financial institutions must investigate consumer electronic fund transfer (EFT) disputes promptly, generally within 10 business days of receiving notice of an error. If the investigation takes longer, the institution must provide provisional credit to the consumer's account within those 10 days for the amount of the alleged error.\\n\\nIt has been 11 Days now past federal regulated deadline\"","date_sent_to_company":"2026-04-16T21:32:41.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"97213","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"21319646","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2026-04-16T21:27:53.000Z","state":"OR","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":["I reported this to BOA on <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> directly the <em>XXXX</em>  day\\n <em>XXXX</em> Procedures for resolving errors.\\nUnder Regulation E, financial institutions must investigate <em>consumer</em> electronic fund transfer (EFT) disputes promptly, generally <em>within</em> 10 business days of receiving notice of an error. If the investigation takes longer, the institution must provide <em>provisional</em> <em>credit</em> to the <em>consumer</em>'s <em>account</em> <em>within</em> <em>those</em> 10 days for the amount of the alleged error."],"product":["Checking or savings <em>account</em>"],"issue":["Managing an <em>account</em>"],"sub_product":["Checking <em>account</em>"],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the <em>consumer</em> and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response"]},"sort":[18.713749,"21319646"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18719741","_score":18.62463,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"On XX/XX/XXXX, I noticed that my Bank of America online checking account balance was extremely low, which was unusual. Upon reviewing my account activity, I discovered unauthorized and fraudulent debit card transactions made with XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX. The total amount of fraudulent charges was {$2100.00}. \n\nI have been a Bank of America customer for nearly 25 years, and I have always maintained my account in good standing. Because of this long-standing relationship, I was particularly concerned by the banks handling of this matter. \n\nI immediately contacted Bank of America and reported the transactions as fraudulent. I clearly informed the representative that I did not authorize these transactions and requested that they be disputed. I was advised that I would receive a provisional credit within 10 business days while Bank of America conducted its investigation. \n\nWithin a few days, I noticed that XXXX XXXX issued a credit, but I never received a provisional credit for the remaining fraudulent charge from XXXX XXXX. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, after more than 10 business days had passed without receiving the full provisional credit, I contacted Bank of America again regarding the missing amount. The representative was unable to provide clear information and instead told me that the bank had until XX/XX/XXXX, to issue the full provisional credit. I was also provided with a different claims phone number, which caused further confusion. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I called the provided claims phone number. A different Bank of America representative informed me that the bank had only issued a {$35.00} provisional credit and that it would not issue a provisional credit for the remaining balance, which exceeded {$900.00}. I was also told that Bank of America had up to 90 days to complete its investigation. \n\nThis position misstates and violates Regulation E. Under 12 CFR 1005.11 ( c ) ( 2 ), when a financial institution can not complete its investigation within 10 business days, it must provisionally credit the consumers account for the full amount of the alleged error so that the consumer has use of the funds during the investigation.\n\nAdditionally, 12 CFR 1005.11 ( d ) ( 1 ) requires that the financial institution promptly correct the error or provide provisional credit, and 1005.11 ( b ) ( 1 ) defines unauthorized electronic fund transfers such as those at issue here.\n\nAs of today, Bank of America has failed to comply with these requirements, despite the fact that : The transactions were promptly reported as unauthorized More than 10 business days have elapsed The bank has acknowledged that the investigation is ongoing My checking account funds were removed, causing financial hardship The remaining provisional credit owed to me is {$920.00}.\n\nI am requesting that the CFPB require Bank of America to immediately issue the full provisional credit of {$920.00}, comply with Regulation E ( 12 CFR 1005.11 ), and provide a written explanation for its failure to follow federal consumer protection requirementsparticularly in light of my nearly 25-year customer relationship with the bank.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-01-14T18:00:43.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"94531","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18719741","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2026-01-14T17:45:05.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Problem using a debit or ATM card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Under 12 CFR 1005.11 ( c ) ( 2 ), when a financial institution can not complete its investigation <em>within</em> 10 business days, it must <em>provisionally</em> <em>credit</em> the <em>consumers</em> <em>account</em> for the full amount of the alleged error so that the <em>consumer</em> has use of the funds during the investigation."],"product":["Checking or savings <em>account</em>"],"issue":["Managing an <em>account</em>"],"sub_product":["Checking <em>account</em>"],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the <em>consumer</em> and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response"]},"sort":[18.62463,"18719741"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"19444112","_score":18.377005,"_source":{"product":"Prepaid card","complaint_what_happened":"I. Statement of Facts On XX/XX/year>, I filed a dispute regarding unauthorized electronic fund transfers associated with my Crypto.com prepaid debit card. \n\nOn XX/XX/year>, Foris DAX, Inc. issued written notice that my account had been provisionally credited for disputed amounts. The written notice explicitly stated : These temporary credits are being provided while we investigate your claim You will have full use of these funds while we complete our investigation. \n\nSubsequently, my virtual card was restricted. I was informed via chat support that : A routine review had been performed. \nI would no longer be able to perform card purchases or apply for a new card. \nThe restriction applied to card functionality. \nI must wait until the investigation is completed. \nThe matter had been escalated internally. \nNo written explanation was provided specifying the legal or contractual basis for the restriction. \n\nAs a result of this restriction : I can not use my card for purchases. \nI can not apply for a replacement card. \nI can not access the provisionally credited funds through the only instrument authorized for such access. \nI was unable to use my funds during an emergency. \n\nThe company has provided provisional credit but has simultaneously XXXX access to the only mechanism by which the funds may be used.\n\nII. Regulatory Framework Implicated A. Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ) 15 U.S.C. 1693f The EFTA requires that when a consumer reports an unauthorized electronic fund transfer, the financial institution must : 1. Conduct a good faith investigation ; 2. Provisionally credit the consumers account within 10 business days if the investigation can not be completed ; 3. Permit the consumer to use the funds during the investigation.\n\nDenying practical access to provisionally credited funds undermines the statutory purpose of the provisional credit requirement.\n\nB. Regulation E 12 C.F.R. 1005.11 ( c ) ( 2 ) ( i ) When provisional credit is provided, the financial institution must : Provisionally credit the consumers account for the amount of the alleged error, including interest where applicable. \n\nOfficial Interpretations clarify that provisional credit must allow the consumer meaningful access to the funds pending investigation. \n\nIssuing provisional credit while simultaneously disabling card functionality prevents meaningful access and defeats the purpose of provisional credit protections.\n\nC. Consumer Financial Protection Act ( CFPA ) 12 U.S.C. 5531 Unfair Acts or Practices An act or practice is unfair if it : 1. Causes or is likely to cause substantial injury ; 2. The injury is not reasonably avoidable ; and 3. The injury is not outweighed by countervailing benefits.\n\nProviding provisional credit while freezing the instrument required to access those funds : Causes substantial financial injury, Is not reasonably avoidable by the consumer, Provides no apparent countervailing consumer benefit, Particularly where the institution has expressly represented in writing that the consumer will have full use of the funds.\n\nD. Potential Adverse Action / Account Restriction Concerns The company has restricted card privileges without providing : A written explanation of the specific basis for restriction, Notice of adverse action, if applicable, Clear disclosure of whether this restriction is tied to fraud review, compliance review, or dispute activity.\n\nThe lack of transparency raises additional compliance concerns.\n\nIII. Core Compliance Issue The central issue is this : Foris DAX , Inc. explicitly stated in writing that I would have full use of provisionally credited funds during the investigation. \n\nHowever, they simultaneously restricted card functionality and prevented access to those funds. \nThis action renders the provisional credit functionally inaccessible and inconsistent with the protections provided under Regulation E and the Electronic Fund Transfer Act.\n\nIV. Harm Experienced Inability to access funds during an emergency Financial hardship due to inability to use credited funds Lack of clear written explanation Ongoing uncertainty regarding access to funds","date_sent_to_company":"2026-02-12T09:15:41.000Z","issue":"Trouble using the card","sub_product":"General-purpose prepaid card","zip_code":"32901","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"19444112","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Foris DAX, Inc.","date_received":"2026-02-12T09:05:23.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Trouble using the card to spend money in a store or online"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ) 15 U.S.C. 1693f The EFTA requires that when a <em>consumer</em> reports an unauthorized electronic fund transfer, the financial institution must : 1. Conduct a good faith investigation ; 2. <em>Provisionally</em> <em>credit</em> the <em>consumers</em> <em>account</em> <em>within</em> 10 business days if the investigation can not be completed ; 3. Permit the <em>consumer</em> to use the funds during the investigation."]},"sort":[18.377005,"19444112"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6342668","_score":18.363289,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"Dear Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, I am filing a complaint against Navy Federal Credit Union, concerning a fraud claim for card num ending in # XXXX of {$190.00}. \n\nNavy Federals investigation determined an agreement that an error occurred as I asserted and that a provisional credit was applied that was not applied temporarily while they await information from the merchant that supports the validity of the disputed charges. \n\nIt clearly states in the provided letter that : if the merchant does not provide information within 45 days from the date of the letter, their determination that the error occurred as I asserted will be final and the provisional credit that I did not receive would become permanent. \n\nIt has been well off past 45 days and Navy Federal has failed to communicate and refund the money back to my account regarding my claim. The merchant has not sent any information within the timeframe stated in the certified letter within this claim ( See Attachments ). Navy Federal states that when their investigation was completed I would be notified of a determination stating whether the provisional credit that I did not receive during their investigation was removed or permanent. \n\nRESOLUTION : Therefore, I am filing a complaint with an expectation of authorization action to be taking place for the return of my funds to be expedited back to my new credit card account ending in # XXXX. \n\nI am also a victim of disable discrimination with a XXXX XXXX  and demand a resolution for those of disabilities to be advocated for under the American of Disability Act to be able to use their reasonable accommodations regarding and claims and consult with a customer service provider as a Private ClienXXXX base on their disability needs. \n\n\nRespectfully Submitted, XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2022-12-20T22:49:13.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Debt settlement","zip_code":"75034","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"6342668","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","date_received":"2022-12-20T22:43:15.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Dear <em>Consumer</em> Financial Protection Bureau, I am filing a complaint against Navy Federal <em>Credit</em> Union, concerning a fraud claim for card num ending in # <em>XXXX</em> of {$190.00}. \n\nNavy Federals investigation determined an agreement that an error occurred as I asserted and that a <em>provisional</em> <em>credit</em> was applied that was not applied temporarily while they await information from the merchant that supports the validity of the disputed charges."],"company":["NAVY FEDERAL <em>CREDIT</em> UNION"]},"sort":[18.363289,"6342668"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"15505176","_score":17.6002,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"Formal Complaint and Demand for Immediate Provisional Credit Date : XX/XX/year> To : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Disputes & Compliance Department XXXX Insert Robinhood Legal/Compliance Address ] From : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX FL XXXX Email XXXX XXXX Phone : XXXX Re : Failure to Provide Provisional Credit Unauthorized Transaction {$2800.00} ( Merchant : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Date : XX/XX/year> ) On XX/XX/year>, I filed a dispute with Robinhood regarding an unauthorized transaction for {$2800.00} that occurred on XX/XX/year>, listed as XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. I simultaneously reported my card lost due to fraud. To date, no provisional credit has been applied to my account. My balance and available credit remain {$0.00}, with no pending or posted credits related to this dispute. Robinhoods own support chat ( Exhibit A, attached ) confirms the following : - I filed a dispute for the transaction and reported my card lost. - Robinhood admits there is no provisional credit applied. - Despite repeated follow-ups over more than 10 business days, I was given generic wait for an email responses, denied proper escalation, and repeatedly promised follow-up emails that never came. Your failure to provide provisional credit is a direct violation of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1693 et seq. ) and Regulation E ( 12 CFR 1005.11 ), which require provisional credit within 10 business days of receiving notice of an unauthorized electronic fund transfer. No compliant extension notice has been provided. I hereby formally demand : 1 ) Immediate issuance of a provisional credit of {$2800.00} to restore my available balance. 2 ) Written confirmation that I am not responsible for the disputed amount while the investigation is pending. 3 ) Written explanation for your failure to comply with Regulation E and details of your investigation to date. Be advised : I have prepared formal complaints with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency ( OCC ), and I am referencing Exhibit A in those complaints. I am also sending copies of this matter to the Securities and Exchange Commission ( SEC ) and FINRA for review. This is your final opportunity to resolve this matter internally. I expect written confirmation and full provisional credit posted within three ( 3 ) business days of receipt of this letter. Sincerely, XXXX  XXXX XXXX Email : XXXX | Phone : XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-08-25T07:03:27.000Z","issue":"Problem with a lender or other company charging your account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"339XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"15505176","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"ROBINHOOD MARKETS INC.","date_received":"2025-08-25T06:51:14.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Transaction was not authorized"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["To date, no <em>provisional</em> <em>credit</em> has been applied to my <em>account</em>. My balance and available <em>credit</em> remain {$0.00}, with no pending or posted <em>credits</em> related to this dispute."],"product":["Checking or savings <em>account</em>"],"issue":["Problem with a lender or other company charging your <em>account</em>"],"sub_product":["Checking <em>account</em>"]},"sort":[17.6002,"15505176"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"21554743","_score":17.478107,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"I filed multiple disputes in XXXX related to duplicate transactions and non-delivery of services through an online platform. The issue is straightforward : I paid for services and credits that I ultimately can not access, withdraw, or use. The platform experienced failures including wiped balances, inaccurate tracking of credits, and account lockout. I have provided supporting documentation showing that I had a significant balance that is now inaccessible. \n\nDespite this, Wells Fargo has taken the position that services were rendered. This conclusion ignores the fact that I do not have access to the account or the ability to use what I paid for. If I can not access or use the services, then they were not delivered. Access and the ability to use or withdraw are fundamental components of the service itself.\n\nThe handling of my disputes has been inconsistent, contradictory, and raises serious concerns about compliance with Regulation E. \n\nThe claims were initially opened on XX/XX/XXXX and denied within 24 hours after being routed to the wrong department. This error was later acknowledged by the executive team. The claims were then repeatedly reopened and closed between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, often within very short timeframes and without any clear explanation or documented investigative findings. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I received communication stating that more time was needed to complete the investigation. However, on XX/XX/XXXX, the claims were denied. When I contacted the executive team shortly after, the most recent internal notes still stated : * Pending partner response * Verified IMC response should be today * Pending outcome for Regulation E claim These notes confirm that the investigation was still ongoing at the time the claims were denied. Despite this, Wells Fargo proceeded to close the claims. \n\nIn addition, Wells Fargo stated in their response that they are reviewing the other transactions and will provide updates separately. These transactions are part of the same claims that were already denied. This creates a direct contradiction : Wells Fargo can not claim the investigation is complete while simultaneously stating that the same transactions are still under review. This indicates the investigation was not complete at the time of denial. \n\nThere have also been significant inconsistencies in how my claims were handled. The claim from XX/XX/XXXX remains open with provisional credit issued and is still under review. Additionally, I opened another claim on XX/XX/XXXX for a separate transaction, and provisional credit was issued on that claim as well, which also remains open. \n\nAt the same time, the remaining claimsfiled under the same circumstanceswere denied without provisional credit. This demonstrates inconsistent application of Regulation E requirements. Claims where provisional credit is issued remain open and under review, while others are denied despite exceeding the same timeframe and involving similar facts. \n\nI was also given conflicting information between departments. The claims department advised that provisional credit should have been issued but could not act because the executive team controls the claims. The executive team stated the claims were denied and directed me back to the claims department. This resulted in a continuous runaround with no resolution.\n\nWells Fargo also failed to follow the requirements of Regulation E under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act. Specifically, under 12 CFR 1005.11 ( c ) ( 2 ), if a financial institution can not complete its investigation within 10 business days, it is required to provisionally credit the consumers account while the investigation continues.\n\nIn my case, Wells Fargo explicitly stated that more time was needed to complete the investigation, confirming that the investigation exceeded the 10-business-day timeframe. Despite this, provisional credit was not issued on the majority of my claims.\n\nWells Fargo can not extend the investigation timeline and deny provisional credit at the same time. The regulation requires provisional credit if the investigation is not completed within the required timeframe.\n\nAdditionally, Wells Fargos determination that there are no grounds for a chargeback is inconsistent with established dispute standards. My claims involve non-delivery of services, services not as described, duplicate transactions, and failure to provide access to purchased services. At the time of purchase, there was no clearly disclosed no-refund policy presented through the payment processor.\n\nAt this point, the record shows : * Claims were denied while internal notes show the investigation was still pending * Wells Fargo acknowledged the need for additional time but did not issue required provisional credit * Conflicting and contradictory information was provided between departments * Claims were repeatedly opened and closed without clear resolution * Identical claims were handled inconsistently, including some receiving provisional credit while others did not I also want to document a concerning development that occurred while my disputes are still active. \n\nI have now been notified that my accounts will be closed by XX/XX/XXXX, despite multiple open claims, pending investigations, and formal notices of error and appeals already submitted. At the same time, I have observed a pattern where any new claims I submit are closed within a very short timeframe ( often within an hour ) when provisional credit is not issued. \n\nThis raises serious concerns about how my disputes are being handled. Closing accounts while disputes are active, combined with the immediate closure of newly submitted claims, creates the appearance that my claims are not being fully reviewed or processed under standard procedures. \n\nAdditionally, this pattern is inconsistent with how other claims have been handled, including claims where provisional credit was issued and those claims remain open and under review. The difference in treatment between claims that receive provisional credit and those that do not further highlights the lack of consistency in how my disputes are being processed. \n\nGiven that I have submitted formal notices of error and appeals within the required timeframe, I am requesting that all claims be properly reviewed and handled in accordance with Regulation E requirements, regardless of the status of my accounts.\n\nI have also filed a complaint with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which has opened a case and is currently reviewing this matter.\n\nI am requesting that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau review this case for compliance with Regulation E and the Electronic Fund Transfer Act. Wells Fargos handling of this matter raises serious concerns about whether proper investigation procedures were followed and whether required consumer protections were applied. \n\nI also request that these claims be reassigned to a different representatives at a higher level than the current escalation specialist ( XXXX XXXX ). My interactions with the current assigned representative have been inconsistent, with conflicting information provided at different times regarding the status of the claims, provisional credit, and investigation progress. This has contributed to confusion and a lack of confidence in how my case is being handled. \n\nGiven the inconsistencies and communication issues, I am requesting that a different representative review and handle these claims moving forward to ensure an objective, thorough, and compliant investigation.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-04-24T04:45:53.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Other banking product or service","zip_code":"32211","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"21554743","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2026-04-24T04:25:25.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Banking errors"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Specifically, under 12 CFR 1005.11 ( c ) ( 2 ), if a financial institution can not complete its investigation <em>within</em> 10 business days, it is required to <em>provisionally</em> <em>credit</em> the <em>consumers</em> <em>account</em> while the investigation continues.\n\nIn my case, Wells Fargo explicitly stated that more time was needed to complete the investigation, confirming that the investigation exceeded the 10-business-day timeframe. Despite this, <em>provisional</em> <em>credit</em> was not issued on the majority of my claims."],"product":["Checking or savings <em>account</em>"],"issue":["Managing an <em>account</em>"],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the <em>consumer</em> and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response"]},"sort":[17.478107,"21554743"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"12862522","_score":16.224712,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"I am submitting this formal complaint regarding Ally Banks handling of unauthorized electronic fund transfers from my personal checking account, which I believe may be in violation of Regulation E under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ). \n\nOn XXXX XXXX XXXX, I contacted Ally Bank to report several unauthorized XXXX transfers totaling {$2000.00} made to an individual with whom I have no personal or professional relationship. I also filed a police report documenting this fraud. \n\nAlly Bank informed me that they would initiate a fraud investigation and temporarily freeze access to my account during the review period. I was told by a customer service representative that the investigation could take up to 10 business days, and that I could expect communication from an investigator within that timeframe, as well as any applicable provisional credit.\n\nHowever, once those 10 business days had passed, I received no communication, no provisional credit, and no resolution to my claim. I proactively contacted Ally Bank again, only to be told that there were no updates, and no timeline could be provided for either resolving the investigation or restoring access to my account. \n\nAs a result of being locked out of my account, I have been unable to access my own funds. This has severely disrupted my ability to make bill payments, particularly for those set up through ACH autopay, and has resulted in multiple rejected transfer fees, delayed receipt of my paycheck, and significant financial hardship.\n\nUnder Regulation E, consumers are entitled to prompt investigation of unauthorized electronic transfers, as well as timely notification of the results andif applicableprovisional credit within 10 business days. Ally Banks failure to provide updates or access to funds beyond this window appears to be non-compliant with these regulatory requirements.\n\nThis situation has caused me significant distress, both financially and emotionally. I am therefore requesting that the CFPB investigate Ally Banks handling of my case and determine whether they are in violation of their obligations under 12 CFR 1005.11 of Regulation E.\n\nThank you for your attention to this matter.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-04-07T14:51:47.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"78702","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"12862522","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"ALLY FINANCIAL INC.","date_received":"2025-04-07T14:25:46.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Problem accessing account"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["However, once <em>those</em> 10 business days had passed, I received no communication, no <em>provisional</em> <em>credit</em>, and no resolution to my claim. I proactively contacted Ally Bank again, only to be told that there were no updates, and no timeline could be provided for either resolving the investigation or restoring access to my <em>account</em>. \n\nAs a result of being locked out of my <em>account</em>, I have been unable to access my own funds."],"product":["Checking or savings <em>account</em>"],"issue":["Managing an <em>account</em>"],"sub_product":["Checking <em>account</em>"],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the <em>consumer</em> and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response"],"sub_issue":["Problem accessing <em>account</em>"]},"sort":[16.224712,"12862522"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"20859625","_score":16.086805,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"I dispute Wells Fargos XX/XX/XXXX response. The banks response is insufficient, conclusory, and does not resolve my complaint. I dispute both the denial of my claim and Wells Fargos refusal to refund the overdraft fees tied to the disputed activity. \n\nWells Fargo says it completed research, but its letter does not show a reasonable, documented investigation of the disputed transfers. Under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E, once a consumer gives timely notice of an alleged error, the financial institution must investigate the alleged error, determine whether an error occurred, and report the results to the consumer within the required time. If the institution can not complete the investigation within 10 business days, it may use provisional credit, but the investigation still must be concluded within the applicable regulatory period, and the consumer must have full use of the provisionally credited funds during the investigation. 15 U.S.C. 1693f ( a ), ( c ).\n\nWells Fargos response does not provide the factual basis necessary to justify denial. The letter says only that Wells Fargo did not identify evidence that the payment was made by an alternate method, could not locate charges on an alternate Wells Fargo account, and found the disputed transactions consistent with prior undisputed activity. Those are generalized conclusions, not a transaction-specific explanation showing what records were reviewed, what merchant or network data was obtained, what account evidence was compared, or how Wells Fargo determined that the disputed transactions were actually authorized by me. Regulation E requires a real investigation and a written explanation of findings if the bank concludes no error occurred. 12 C.F.R. 1005.11 ( c ), ( d ).\n\nThe CFPBs official commentary also makes clear that a financial institution must begin its investigation promptly upon receipt of an oral notice and may not delay until it receives written confirmation. It also states that if an error occurred, the institution must correct the error, including refunding any fees imposed by the institution, where applicable. 12 C.F.R. Part 1005, Official Interpretations to 1005.11 ( c ).\n\nI also dispute Wells Fargos apparent effort to rely on prior undisputed activity, receipt of benefit, or a broad transaction pattern instead of proving authorization of the disputed transfers. Under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E, consumer liability for unauthorized electronic fund transfers is limited by law, and the bank must comply with Regulation E before imposing liability on the consumer for an unauthorized EFT claim. 15 U.S.C. 1693g ( a ) ; 12 C.F.R. 1005.6 ( b ) ; Official Interpretations to 1005.11 ( b ). \nThe response is also deficient because it does not provide the documentation underlying Wells Fargos determination. If a financial institution determines that no error occurred, it must provide an explanation of its findings, include notice of the consumers right to request the documents relied upon, and, upon request, promptly provide reproductions of the documents it relied on. 15 U.S.C. 1693f ( d ) ; 12 C.F.R. 1005.11 ( d ) ( 1 ). The CFPBs official commentary further states that the institution must provide copies in understandable form. \n\nI am therefore formally requesting that Wells Fargo produce all documents and data it relied upon in denying my claim and reversing the provisional credit, including but not limited to internal claim notes, transaction logs, account comparisons, merchant information, network records, screenshots, and any other material used to conclude that no error occurred. Regulation E expressly provides that those documents must be produced upon request. \n\nI also dispute Wells Fargos refusal to refund the overdraft fees listed in its own response. Wells Fargo identified XXXX overdraft fees of {$35.00} each, totaling {$420.00}. Those fees are : Account ending in XXXX : XXXX payment posted XX/XX/XXXX {$35.00} fee applied XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX posted XX/XX/XXXX {$35.00} fee applied XX/XX/XXXX Account ending in XXXX : XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX posted XX/XX/XXXX {$35.00} fee applied XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX posted XX/XX/XXXX {$35.00} fee applied XX/XX/XXXX XXXX * XXXX XXXX XXXX posted XX/XX/XXXX {$35.00} fee applied XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX {$35.00} fee applied XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX posted XX/XX/XXXX {$35.00} fee applied XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX NJ posted XX/XX/XXXX {$35.00} fee applied XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX posted XX/XX/XXXX {$35.00} fee applied XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX posted XX/XX/XXXX {$35.00} fee applied XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX posted XX/XX/XXXX {$35.00} fee applied XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX  posted XX/XX/XXXX {$35.00} fee applied XX/XX/XXXX That is {$420.00} in overdraft fees identified by Wells Fargo . Wells Fargo also says one {$35.00} courtesy refund was issued on XX/XX/XXXX for the XX/XX/XXXX XXXX transaction, which means at least {$380.00} remains outstanding even under Wells Fargos own accounting. \n\nThese fees should not have been dismissed with a blanket statement about Wells Fargos posting practices. The bank still must explain, transaction by transaction and fee by fee, why each overdraft fee remains valid, especially where the fees were tied to disputed transactions and where Wells Fargo reversed provisional credit after denying the claim. The CFPBs official commentary states that if an error occurred, the institution must correct the error, including refunding fees imposed by the institution where applicable, and that upon debiting provisional credit, the institution may not impose fees for items it is required to honor under 1005.11.\n\nWells Fargos letter also states that it reversed the provisional credit of {$74.00} on XX/XX/XXXX. If Wells Fargo debited provisional credit after concluding no error occurred, Regulation E required a written explanation of findings and notice of my right to request the documents relied upon, and those documents must be provided promptly upon request. 12 C.F.R. 1005.11 ( d ) ( 1 ) - ( 2 ) ; 15 U.S.C. 1693f ( d ).\n\nWells Fargos handling of this matter also appears to raise UDAAP concerns under the Consumer Financial Protection Act. The CFPB may prevent a covered person from engaging in an unfair, deceptive, or abusive act or practice in connection with a consumer financial product or service, and it is unlawful for a covered person to engage in an unfair, deceptive, or abusive act or practice. 12 U.S.C. 5531 ( a ), 5536 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ). An act or practice is unfair where it causes or is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers, the injury is not reasonably avoidable by consumers, and the injury is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or competition. 12 U.S.C. 5531 ( c ). Here, Wells Fargo reversed provisional credit, retained overdraft fees, and provided only a conclusory explanation rather than a transparent, evidence-based explanation of how it determined the disputed transactions were authorized. That caused concrete monetary harm to me in the form of unreimbursed fees and charges, and that harm was not reasonably avoidable once the bank controlled the investigation, the provisional credit decision, and the fee determinations. To the extent Wells Fargo failed to conduct a sufficient investigation, failed to provide a meaningful explanation, or retained fees without adequate support, that conduct appears to raise unfairness concerns under UDAAP.\n\nI am asking CFPB to require Wells Fargo to : 1. Reopen the investigation.\n\n2. Produce all documents and evidence relied upon in denying claim number XXXX and reversing the provisional credit. \n3. Provide a transaction-by-transaction explanation of how Wells Fargo concluded the disputed activity was authorized.\n\n4. Provide a fee-by-fee explanation of why each of the 12 overdraft fees remains valid. \n5. Refund all overdraft fees identified in the letter, totaling {$420.00}, or at minimum refund the outstanding {$380.00} Wells Fargo still appears to owe after the single {$35.00} courtesy refund it claims to have issued. \n6. Confirm whether Wells Fargo fully complied with the timing, investigation, provisional credit, written explanation, and document-production requirements of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E.\n\n7. Evaluate whether Wells Fargos conduct also constitutes an unfair act or practice under the Consumer Financial Protection Act/UDAAP provisions. \n\nMy position is straightforward : Wells Fargo has not shown a sufficient basis to deny my claim, has not provided the records it relied upon, and has not justified retaining the overdraft fees listed in its own response. I request that CFPB continue to pursue this matter and require a substantive response with supporting documentation.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-04-01T20:14:33.000Z","issue":"Problem caused by your funds being low","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"282XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"20859625","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2026-04-01T20:09:33.000Z","state":"NC","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Overdrafts and overdraft fees"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["If the institution can not complete the investigation <em>within</em> 10 business days, it may use <em>provisional</em> <em>credit</em>, but the investigation still must be concluded <em>within</em> the applicable regulatory period, and the <em>consumer</em> must have full use of the <em>provisionally</em> <em>credited</em> funds during the investigation. 15 U.S.C. 1693f ( a ), ( c ).\n\nWells Fargos response does not provide the factual basis necessary to justify denial."],"product":["Checking or savings <em>account</em>"],"sub_product":["Checking <em>account</em>"],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the <em>consumer</em> and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response"]},"sort":[16.086805,"20859625"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"15965238","_score":16.022053,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"I called Bank of America a month or so to dispute charges on my credit card ending in XXXX as I noticed in my online account that I had charges on them. During that call, I spoke with a male rep and advised him that I never received paper statements so I was wondering what those charges are. I told him that BOA is not my primary credit card and only using my checking account with them to pay my son 's school expenses so I do not log into my account compared to my other primary accounts. I was told that I will get an investigation results in the mail but I never did as of today, XX/XX/XXXX. I placed a call today because I finally received a credit card paper statement as I found out that they have not stopped charging my account after my first attempt to report a suspected fraud transactions, and continued to charge late fee. I asked the lady rep for the date I last called them to refer my request to dispute charges for those suspected fraud, but was informed that she does not have a record or found notation about that call. She however confirmed that they have closed my credit card account. I could have paid it off when I called them upon initial report as I also have an active checking account with them. It was easy for me to debit my account if they are legitimate transactions, but I relied to the promised result of their fraud investigation. I expected that their obligation as fiduciary will be fulfilled, but it seemed that they took my call for granted. I understand that under Regulation XXXX, financial institutions must promptly investigate errors reported by consumers. The basic timeline is to resolve most errors within XXXX business days and report findings within XXXX days of completing the investigation. If an institution needs more time, they may take up to 45 days by provisionally crediting the consumer 's account within XXXX business days. However, extended deadlines of up to 90 days apply for specific transactions like point-of-sale debit card transactions or those involving new accounts within XXXX  days of the first deposit. The institution must notify the consumer of its findings and explain their right to request supporting documents. In my frustration, I requested today to debit my BOA checking account to settle it. I am writing to let you know that Bank of America did not comply with the consumer protection guidelines and kept on charging fees to the disputed transactions.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-09-16T14:09:03.000Z","issue":"Fees or interest","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"22030","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"15965238","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2025-09-16T13:27:51.000Z","state":"VA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Problem with fees"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["The basic timeline is to resolve most errors <em>within</em> <em>XXXX</em> business days and report findings <em>within</em> <em>XXXX</em> days of completing the investigation. If an institution needs more time, they may take up to 45 days by <em>provisionally</em> <em>crediting</em> the <em>consumer</em> 's <em>account</em> <em>within</em> <em>XXXX</em> business days. However, extended deadlines of up to 90 days apply for specific transactions like point-of-sale debit card transactions or <em>those</em> involving new <em>accounts</em> <em>within</em> <em>XXXX</em>  days of the first deposit."],"product":["<em>Credit</em> card"],"sub_product":["General-purpose <em>credit</em> card or charge card"],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the <em>consumer</em> and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response"]},"sort":[16.022053,"15965238"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14069190","_score":15.719742,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"On XX/XX/year>, {$790.00} was posted to my checking account with KeyBank due to winnings from a gambling site out of XXXX XXXX. I originally authorized a few transactions which led to me winning {$800.00}. I have a skeptical at first but the {$790.00} was deposited to my account in a couple days. Within an hour those winnings were taking out of my checking account without my authorization. I immediately notified KeyBank via a phone call to the fraud department. I then emailed the website of the gambling site and then received notification to contact them through the app which I did but never received a response. I have since deleted that app so no more money can be taken out of my account. In following up with KeyBank I was told a provisional credit would appear on my account. That was on around XX/XX/year>. In a second attempt to follow up, I contacted my local branch and was told that the claim had been denied and to contact the KeyBank fraud division directly. I then spoke to someone who told me that the case was still pending, but then stated after that the claim had been denied I escalated to a supervisor and they basically told me the same information that I had initiated a purchase with that merchant and that all transactions going forward were approved. I requested a reopening of the investigation and to have a provisional credit added to my account. That supervisor told me she could not do it, and that she would just reopen the case. I then asked her if she was familiar with federal law E, which required her company to provide a provisional credit while my case was being investigated, she would not answer the question and I told her I was going to make a complaint with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. She claims that I have to prove that I did not make any purchases and when I asked what proof the site provided showing that I authorize more charges, she could not answer.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-06-13T16:30:37.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"129XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14069190","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"KEYCORP","date_received":"2025-06-13T16:12:33.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Problem using a debit or ATM card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["On XX/XX/year>, {$790.00} was posted to my checking <em>account</em> with KeyBank due to winnings from a gambling site out of <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em>. I originally authorized a few transactions which led to me winning {$800.00}. I have a skeptical at first but the {$790.00} was deposited to my <em>account</em> in a couple days. <em>Within</em> an hour <em>those</em> winnings were taking out of my checking <em>account</em> without my authorization. I immediately notified KeyBank via a phone call to the fraud department."],"product":["Checking or savings <em>account</em>"],"issue":["Managing an <em>account</em>"],"sub_product":["Checking <em>account</em>"]},"sort":[15.719742,"14069190"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"21861787","_score":15.613687,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"Company : Navy Federal Credit Union Product : Checking/Savings Account Issue : Problem with a purchase shown on your statement / Unauthorized transactions/ Fees What happened : From XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX, I disputed unauthorized electronic transactions on my account with Navy Federal Credit Union . These transactions were investigated under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E.\n\nNavy Federal failed to comply with Regulation E requirements during this process. Specifically, they refused to provide provisional credit while conducting an extended investigation that lasted approximately 90 days. Under federal law, if an institution can not complete its investigation within 10 business days, it must issue provisional credit while continuing the investigation.\n\nBecause Navy Federal did not provide provisional credit, I was forced to absorb the full financial impact of the disputed transactions during the investigation period. As a result, I incurred overdraft fees, advance fees, and interest charges, all directly tied to funds that were under dispute.\n\nTo avoid financial collapse and meet basic living needs, I had to reverse payments from my credit cards into my checking account during this period. This created additional financial strain and long-term consequences.\n\nAfter approximately 90 days, the investigation concluded in my favor, and the disputed funds were returned. However, Navy Federal refused to refund any of the fees or interest that accrued during the investigation period, even though those charges were caused by their failure to follow Regulation E.\n\nWhen I attempted to resolve the issue, I was told that the credit department would not coordinate with the dispute department, and therefore no relief would be provided. This reflects a systemic failure and an unwillingness to correct harm caused by their own noncompliance.\n\nWhy this is wrong : Navy Federals actions violate the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E, which require : Timely investigation of disputes ; Issuance of provisional credit if an investigation exceeds 10 business days ; Protection of consumers from financial harm during the dispute process.\n\nBy refusing provisional credit and allowing fees and interest to accumulate on disputed funds, Navy Federal improperly shifted liability onto me and profited from funds that were ultimately determined not to be my responsibility.\n\nWhat I want : I am requesting that Navy Federal Credit Union : Refund all overdraft fees, advance fees, and interest charges incurred between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX that resulted from the disputed transactions ; Provide a full accounting of all fees and interest assessed during this period ; Take corrective action to ensure future compliance with Regulation E requirements.\n\nAdditional notes ( optional field in CFPB form ) : This situation caused significant financial hardship over a three-month period. I was forced into unsustainable financial measures solely because Navy Federal did not follow federal law governing electronic fund transfer disputes. The fact that the investigation was ultimately resolved in my favor confirms that I should not have borne any of these costs.\n\nAdditionally, these are all secured credit cards which navy federal has a hold on XXXX dollars in my savings account that they prevent my access to. I have requested several times that they use those funds to pay the cards however they refuse to. To date my credit is being destroyed and fees are stacking up along with interest because they wont use the funds that are on hold specifically for the purpose of paying the credit cards.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-05-04T19:15:25.000Z","issue":"Fees or interest","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"16506","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"21861787","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","date_received":"2026-05-04T18:55:29.000Z","state":"PA","company_public_response":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","sub_issue":"Problem with fees"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Specifically, they refused to provide <em>provisional</em> <em>credit</em> while conducting an extended investigation that lasted approximately 90 days. Under federal law, if an institution can not complete its investigation <em>within</em> 10 business days, it must issue <em>provisional</em> <em>credit</em> while continuing the investigation.\n\nBecause Navy Federal did not provide <em>provisional</em> <em>credit</em>, I was forced to absorb the full financial impact of the disputed transactions during the investigation period."],"product":["<em>Credit</em> card"],"company":["NAVY FEDERAL <em>CREDIT</em> UNION"],"sub_product":["General-purpose <em>credit</em> card or charge card"]},"sort":[15.613687,"21861787"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8588835","_score":14.708021,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"I was the victim of an imposter scam involving my Chase checking account, XXXX XXXX  and XXXX involving 16 separate transactions with posting dates between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX ( see below ). I went to Chase to dispute the charges and provided all the information required under Regulation E, Section 1005.11 ( b ) ( 1 ) to provide proper notice. The gentleman at the branch told me that the XXXX charges were not eligible for reimbursement and that he would submit the others as disputes. \n\nI inquired again about the XXXX charges because I understood that XXXX had announced that it would be reimbursing imposter scams, but was told again that the XXXX transactions were not subject to reimbursement. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I received reversals for 11 of the transactions, all except XXXX. There was no indication that these were provisional credit and no communication or notifications of any kind, just the reversals showing up in my bank account. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX Chase reversed the reversals for 6 of the credits and another one is pending reversal as of XX/XX/XXXX. Again, there was no communication from Chase, no letter, no disclosure, no explanation regarding the results of their investigation, etc. Additionally, each of these reversals are marked as transaction type \" ATM '' which is untrue and another error for regulation E purposes. \n\nAt no time did Chase provide me with the a report of the results of its investigation, in violation of Section 1005.11 ( c ) ( 1 ), which requires that \" The institution shall report the results to the consumer within three business days after completing its investigation. The institution shall correct the error within one business day after determining that an error occurred. '' If the amounts provided were provisional credit, then Chase also violated Section 1005.11 ( c ) ( 2 ) ( ii ), ( iii ) which require that the institution does the following ( ii ) Informs the consumer, within two business days after the provisional crediting, of the amount and date of the provisional crediting and gives the consumer full use of the funds during the investigation; and ( iv ) Reports the results to the consumer within three business days after completing its investigation ( including, if applicable, notice that a provisional credit has been made final ). \n\nChase also violated Section 1005.11 ( d ) ( 1 ), in that it did not provide any written explanation of its findings, did not include the consumer 's right to request documents relied on it making its determination, and did not meet any of the requirements of Section 1005.11 ( d ) ( 2 ), which states as follows : ( 2 ) Debiting provisional credit. Upon debiting a provisionally credited amount, the financial institution shall : ( i ) Notify the consumer of the date and amount of the debiting ; ( ii ) Notify the consumer that the institution will honor checks, drafts, or similar instruments payable to third parties and preauthorized transfers from the consumer 's account ( without charge to the consumer as a result of an overdraft ) for five business days after the notification. The institution shall honor items as specified in the notice, but need honor only items that it would have paid if the provisionally credited funds had not been debited. \n\nNor did it follow the alternative procedures : 1. Alternative procedure for debiting of credited funds. The financial institution may comply with the requirements of this section by notifying the consumer that the consumer 's account will be debited five business days from the transmittal of the notification, specifying the calendar date on which the debiting will occur.\n\n2. Fees for overdrafts. The financial institution may not impose fees for items it is required to honor under 1005.11. It may, however, impose any normal transaction or item fee that is unrelated to an overdraft resulting from the debiting. If the account is still overdrawn after five business days, the institution may impose the fees or finance charges to which it is entitled, if any, under an overdraft credit plan. \n\nFinally, XXXX announced in XX/XX/XXXX in response to Congressional and other inquiries that it would reimburse customers for imposter scams. Notwithstanding, Chase indicated that the XXXX transactions could not be reimbursed and XXXX does not provide a method to seek reimbursement directly through XXXX. \n\nFinally, Chase appears to have failed in its duty to monitor and prevent elder abuse and fraud with this situation. Banks are mandated reporters of suspected Elder Abuse under Californias Financial Elder Abuse Reporting Act. Cal. W & I Code 15630.1. Financial abuse of an elder or dependent adult occurs when a person or entity ... [ t ] akes, secretes, appropriates, obtains, or retains real or personal property of an elder or dependent adult for a wrongful use or with intent to defraud, or both. Cal. W & I Code 15610.30 ( a ) ( 1 ). The law provides that \" suspected financial abuse of an elder or dependent adult '' occurs when a person who is required to report under subdivision ( a ) observes or has knowledge of behavior or unusual circumstances or transactions, or a pattern of behavior or unusual circumstances or transactions, that would lead an individual with like training or experience, based on the same facts, to form a reasonable belief that an elder or dependent adult is the victim of financial abuse as defined in Section 15610.30. Cal. W & I Code 15630.1 ( h ) ( emphasis added ). \n\nIn this case, those at the bank should have formed a reasonable belief that I was the victim of financial abuse. Certainly, the pattern of behavior was suspicious. I am XXXX XXXX XXXX and have never sent any money using XXXX XXXX. Over a period of about 7 days and through 16 different unusual transactions involving XXXX XXXX and XXXX, totaling over {$14000.00}. \n\nThe transactions should have triggered their elder abuse red flags or other red flags that could have mitigated the harm. \n\nXXXX 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 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 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 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 XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2024-03-20T22:02:19.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"945XX","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8588835","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","date_received":"2024-03-20T21:14:12.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Problem using a debit or ATM card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Reports the results to the <em>consumer</em> <em>within</em> three business days after completing its investigation ( including, if applicable, notice that a <em>provisional</em> <em>credit</em> has been made final )."],"product":["Checking or savings <em>account</em>"],"issue":["Managing an <em>account</em>"],"sub_product":["Checking <em>account</em>"]},"sort":[14.708021,"8588835"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18280748","_score":14.421889,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"SUPPLEMENTAL CFPB COMPLAINT AGAINST CHIME # # CFPB Complaint # XXXX - ESCALATION & AMENDMENT -- - # # COMPLAINT SUMMARY This is a XXXX XXXX  supplemental complaint and escalation XXXX XXXX  of CFPB Complaint XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  filed on XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nXXXX XXXX  Updated Filing Date : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Issue : * * Chime has * * violated Regulation E * * by : 1. * * Refusing to issue provisional credit * * required by law for unauthorized charges XXXX. * * Failing to re-categorize * * a dispute despite overwhelming evidence of fraud XXXX. * * Obstructing consumer rights * * by not providing documents used in original denial XXXX. * * Withholding materials * * needed for consumer to appeal the improper denial XXXX. * * Unreasonable delays * * in dispute resolution beyond Regulation XXXX timelines * * Total Disputed Amount : * * {$1200.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX Original Dispute Case XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Original Denial Date : * * XX/XX/XXXX * * Reopened/Escalation Date : * * XX/XX/XXXX * * Current Status : * * Stalled - No resolution, no provisional credit, re-categorization not completed -- - # # TIMELINE OF VIOLATIONS | Date | Event | Violation XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX * * | Original dispute DENIED as \" goods not received '' | Improper categorization | | * * XX/XX/XXXX * * | Customer reopens dispute with new merchant evidence | Proper escalation | | * * XX/XX/XXXX * * | Agent says re-categorization to \" unauthorized/fraudulent '' within XXXX business days | False promise | | * * XX/XX/XXXX * * | No re-categorization completed ; no provisional credit issued | Regulation XXXX violation begins | | * * XX/XX/XXXX * * | Customer requests original denial documents ; Chime sends wrong documents | Obstruction of consumer rights | | * * Dec 20-24, 2025 * * | Chime refuses to provide original dispute decision documents | Document withholding | | * * XX/XX/XXXX * * | Still no provisional credit ; re-categorization incomplete 9 days after escalation | Regulation XXXX non-compliance | -- - # # VIOLATION XXXX : FAILURE TO ISSUE PROVISIONAL CREDIT # # # Legal Standard ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) * * Regulation XXXX requires banks to issue provisional credit when : * * XXXX. XXXX reports unauthorized transfer XXXX. XXXX provides substantial evidence XXXX. Bank must complete investigation within XXXX business days * * OR * * issue provisional credit while investigating * * All three conditions are met in this case : * * - * * Consumer reported unauthorized charges : * * Dispute filed XX/XX/XXXX - * * Substantial evidence provided : * * Fortune Coins ' XX/XX/XXXX support email stating : - Account verification was REJECTED - Duplicate fraudulent accounts were DISCOVERED- All accounts were PERMANENTLY LOCKED - * * Bank has not complied : * * As of XX/XX/XXXX ( 9 days after dispute reopening ), NO provisional credit has been issued # # # Chime 's Violation Chime has * * violated XXXX XXXX XXXX ( c ) and ( d ) * * by : XXXX. * * Refusing to issue provisional credit * * despite substantial evidence of unauthorized charges XXXX. * * Failing to meet the XXXX deadline * * without issuing provisional credit XXXX. * * Not acknowledging customer requests * * for provisional credit status updates XXXX. * * Making agents tell customer * * to \" wait for escalation '' without providing timeline # # # Impact on XXXX XXXX has been * * without access to {$1200.00} for XXXX days * * while Chime delays decision, violating federal consumer protection law. \n\n-- - # # VIOLATION XXXX : FAILURE TO RE-CATEGORIZE DESPITE UNDENIABLE EVIDENCE # # # What Happened * * Original Denial ( XX/XX/XXXX ) : * * - Dispute was categorized as * * '' goods not received '' * * - Merchant claimed XXXX coins were delivered ( true but fraudulent ) - Chime denied dispute on this weak category * * Reopening ( XX/XX/XXXX ) : * * - Customer provided XXXX XXXX ' official support email proving : - Account verification was REJECTED - Accounts were FRAUDULENT and LOCKED - Therefore charges are UNAUTHORIZED, not just \" goods not received '' - Agent told customer : * * '' Re-categorization will happen in XXXX business days '' * * - Agent authorized escalation to disputes team * * Current Status ( XX/XX/XXXX ) : * * - * * 9 DAYS LATER : Re-categorization NOT completed * * - Dispute still shows original category or unclear status - Chime has made NO progress on promised escalation # # # Legal Violation * * XXXX XXXX XXXX ( a ) * * requires banks to * * conduct investigation of disputes properly * *, which includes : XXXX. Using correct categorization XXXX. Applying correct legal standards based on evidence XXXX. Not denying claims that should be categorized as \" unauthorized '' Chime violated this by : - * * Refusing to recategorize * * despite merchant 's own admission of fraud - * * Delaying 9 days * * without progress - * * Providing no written explanation * * of why re-categorization hasn't happened # # # Why This Matters Under \" goods not received, '' the bank can deny the claim. Under \" unauthorized transaction, '' the bank * * must * * issue provisional credit and fully investigate. Chime 's refusal to categorize properly * * deprives consumer of legal protections * *. \n\n-- - # # VIOLATION XXXX : WITHHOLDING DECISION DOCUMENTS # # # What Consumer Requested On December 19-20, 2025, consumer asked Chime : XXXX \" Please provide the documents that were used in the * * original dispute decision ( XX/XX/XXXX denial ) * *. I need to know what evidence was considered when Chime decided to deny my dispute. '' # # # What Chime Did Chime * * sent the wrong documents : * * - Sent documents uploaded on XX/XX/XXXX ( customer 's new evidence ) - * * DID NOT send * * the original dispute decision or analysis from XXXX - * * DID NOT provide * * the reasoning Chime used to deny on XX/XX/XXXX - Claimed they don't have those documents, or refused to provide them # # # Legal Violation * * XXXX XXXX XXXX ( b ) * * requires banks to * * provide consumers with written explanations * * of their dispute decisions, including : XXXX. The bank 's findings XXXX. The explanation of those findings XXXX. The basis for the decision When consumer asks for the original decision documents, Chime has a * * legal obligation to provide them * *. \n\n* * Chime violated this by : * * - Withholding original dispute decision documents- Sending irrelevant documents instead - Refusing to explain why XX/XX/XXXX denial was made - Obstructing consumer 's right to appeal # # # Why This Matters Without the original decision documents, consumer can not : - Challenge the reasoning - Appeal based on errors - Prove Chime failed to consider evidence - Build a case for regulatory action * * This is intentional obstruction of consumer rights. * * -- - # # VIOLATION XXXX : FAILURE TO RESPOND TO LEGITIMATE REQUESTS # # # Timeline of Ignored Requests | Date | Request | Response | | -- -- -- | -- -- -- -- -| -- -- -- -- -- | | XX/XX/XXXX | Provisional credit eligibility question | \" Wait for escalation '' | | XX/XX/XXXX | Original dispute decision documents | Wrong documents sent | | XX/XX/XXXX | Provisional credit status update | No update provided | | XX/XX/XXXX | Re-categorization timeline | No response | | XX/XX/XXXX | Request for supervisor escalation | Delayed/no clear response | | XX/XX/XXXX | Follow-up on Regulation XXXX timeline | No resolution | # # # Legal Violation Banks must * * respond promptly and adequately * * to consumer dispute inquiries. Chime 's pattern of : - Non-responsive customer service - Vague escalation promises - Failure to document decisions - Refusal to acknowledge legal timelines ... violates * * XXXX XXXX XXXX * * ( prompt investigation ) and * * XXXX XXXX XXXX * * ( procedures for resolving disputes ). \n\n-- - # # EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THIS COMPLAINT # # # Evidence XXXX : Fortune Coins Support Email ( XX/XX/XXXX ) * * This proves charges are unauthorized : * * XXXX \" Upon reviewing your account, we discovered numerous duplicate accounts under your name. We regret to inform you that we will no longer continue the account verification. We will now reject your account verification application. All accounts under your name have been permanently locked. '' * * This email proves : * * - Account verification was REJECTED - Duplicate FRAUDULENT accounts exist- ALL accounts PERMANENTLY LOCKED - Therefore NO legitimate transaction could occur * * Chime has seen this email. Chime can not deny that it proves fraud. * * # # # Evidence XXXX : Original Denial ( XX/XX/XXXX ) Screenshots show Chime * * explicitly denied * * the original dispute. \n\nThis means Chime made a decision based on * * incomplete information * *, and consumer is entitled to : - Review of that decision - Reconsideration with new evidence - Re-categorization if new evidence changes the analysis # # # Evidence XXXX : Re-categorization Promise ( XX/XX/XXXX ) Agent explicitly stated : * * '' Re-categorization to unauthorized/fraudulent within XXXX business days '' * * As of XX/XX/XXXX, this promise has not been kept ( 9 days, not XXXX ). \n\n# # # Evidence XXXX : Document Withholding Chime 's failure to provide original dispute decision documents violates consumer 's right to : - Appeal decisions- Challenge reasoning - Build regulatory complaints -- - # # SPECIFIC REGULATION XXXX VIOLATIONS # # # Violation A : XXXX XXXX XXXX ( c ) - Provisional Credit > \" If the financial institution determines, after an investigation, that a transfer initiated by a consumer was not authorized, the financial institution shall reverse the transfer and credit the consumer 's account ... '' * * Chime has determined * * ( through re-categorization to \" unauthorized '' ) that the transfer was not authorized. \n\n* * Therefore, Chime MUST provide provisional credit. * * * * Chime has FAILED to comply. * * -- - # # # Violation B : XXXX XXXX XXXX ( d ) - Provisional Credit Timeline > \" The financial institution shall provide the provisional credit within XXXX business day of learning of facts warranting credit, if the financial institution has reason to believe that the consumer 's account will be subject to further unauthorized transfers ... '' * * Facts warranting credit were provided on XX/XX/XXXX * * ( XXXX XXXX email proving fraud ). \n\n* * Timeline : Within XXXX business day = by XX/XX/XXXX * * * * As of XX/XX/XXXX, credit has not been provided = VIOLATION * * -- - # # # Violation C : XXXX XXXX XXXX ( a ) - Investigation > \" The financial institution shall investigate the claim of an unauthorized transfer ... '' * * Proper investigation requires : * * XXXX. Accepting the claim ( done ) XXXX. Gathering evidence ( done by consumer ) XXXX. * * Proper categorization ( NOT done - still incomplete after 9 days ) * * XXXX. * * Issuing provisional credit ( NOT done- violates timeline ) * * XXXX. * * Completing investigation ( NOT done - stalled ) * * * * Chime has failed multiple investigation requirements. * * -- - # # # Violation D : XXXX XXXX XXXX ( b ) - Written Explanation > \" The financial institution shall furnish a written explanation of the financial institution 's findings ... '' * * Customer requested the findings from original XX/XX/XXXX decision. * * * * Chime refused to provide them or sent irrelevant documents. * * * * VIOLATION : Failure to provide written explanation or decision documents. * * -- - # # REGULATORY HISTORY OF CHIME This is not an isolated incident. * * Chime has a documented history of Regulation XXXX violations : * * - * * XX/XX/XXXX : * * CFPB took enforcement action against Chime for * * '' illegally delaying consumer refunds '' * * under Regulation XXXX - * * XX/XX/XXXX : * * Hundreds of Chime customers filed CFPB complaints over account lockouts and delayed disputes - * * XX/XX/XXXX : * * California fined Chime {$2.00} XXXX for customer service failures * * Pattern : * * Chime systematically delays disputes and refuses provisional credit. \n\n-- - # # REQUESTED ACTION FROM CFPB # # # Immediate Actions Required XXXX. * * Demand Chime issue provisional credit of {$1200.00} immediately * * under Regulation XXXX XXXX CFR XXXX ( c ) XXXX. * * Demand Chime recategorize dispute as \" unauthorized/fraudulent transaction '' * * based on XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX admission of account fraud XXXX. * * Demand Chime provide original XX/XX/XXXX dispute decision documents * * and written explanation of reasoning XXXX. * * Demand Chime investigate and resolve dispute within XXXX business days * * of this complaint or issue final credit # # # Enforcement Actions XXXX. * * Investigate Chime 's systematic Regulation XXXX violations * * ( delay of provisional credit, improper denial categories ) XXXX XXXX XXXX Issue enforcement action * * similar to XX/XX/XXXX action regarding \" illegal delays '' of refunds XXXX. * * Require Chime to : * * - Implement provisional credit procedures that meet Regulation XXXX timelines- Train staff on correct dispute categorization - Audit all pending disputes for compliance - Provide compensation for consumer delays and violations XXXX. * * Monitor Chime 's dispute handling * * for pattern of violations -- - # # SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION * * Attached to this complaint : * * - [ ] Fortune Coins support email ( XX/XX/XXXX ) - PRIMARY EVIDENCE - [ ] Screenshots of original dispute denial ( XX/XX/XXXX ) - [ ] Screenshots of re-opening and escalation ( XX/XX/XXXX ) - [ ] Screenshots of agent 's promise of XXXX re-categorization - [ ] Screenshots showing no provisional credit posted ( XX/XX/XXXX ) - [ ] Proof of request for original decision documents- [ ] Proof of non-responsive customer service - [ ] All transaction confirmations and communications with Chime - [ ] Bank statements showing charges and no refunds - [ ] Documentation of Regulation XXXX timeline violations -- - # # STATEMENT OF FACTS XXXX. * * XXXX had legitimate unauthorized charges * * from a merchant that admitted account fraud in writing XXXX. * * Original dispute was denied improperly * * under \" goods not received '' category instead of \" unauthorized '' XXXX. * * XXXX provided overwhelming evidence * * ( merchant 's own support email ) proving fraud and account compromise XXXX. * * Chime promised re-categorization within XXXX business days * * ( XXXX XXXX ) XXXX. * * Chime failed to re-categorize, issue provisional credit, or provide promised documents * * XXXX. * * As of XX/XX/XXXX, Chime remains in violation * * of Regulation XXXX requirements XXXX. * * Consumer is entitled to : * * - Provisional credit of {$1200.00} - Proper dispute categorization - Complete investigation - Final resolution within legal timeframe - Written explanation of decisions -XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX CONTACT INFORMATION * * Name : * * XXXX XXXX * * Email : * * XXXX * * Phone : * * XXXX * * Address : * * XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, Indiana XXXX * * Original CFPB Complaint : * * # XXXX * * Chime Dispute Case : * * # XXXX -- - # # REQUEST FOR CFPB RESPONSE XXXX. Acknowledge receipt of supplemental complaint within 15 days XXXX. Initiate investigation into Chime 's Regulation XXXX violations XXXX. Demand Chime 's compliance within 15 days XXXX. Issue enforcement action if Chime does not comply XXXX. Provide consumer with status updates -- - * * This supplemental complaint documents systematic violations of federal consumer protection law and requests immediate CFPB enforcement action. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX - Reference original complaint # XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-12-25T09:38:06.000Z","issue":"Problem with a lender or other company charging your account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"463XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18280748","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Chime Financial Inc","date_received":"2025-12-25T09:33:17.000Z","state":"IN","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Transaction was not authorized"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["* * Therefore, Chime MUST provide <em>provisional</em> <em>credit</em>. * * * * Chime has FAILED to comply. * * -- - # # # Violation B : <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> ( d ) - <em>Provisional</em> <em>Credit</em> Timeline > \" The financial institution shall provide the <em>provisional</em> <em>credit</em> <em>within</em> <em>XXXX</em> business day of learning of facts warranting <em>credit</em>, if the financial institution has reason to believe that the <em>consumer</em> 's <em>account</em> will be subject to further unauthorized transfers ... '' * * Facts warranting <em>credit</em> were provided on XX/XX/<em>XXXX</em> * *"],"product":["Checking or savings <em>account</em>"],"issue":["Problem with a lender or other company charging your <em>account</em>"],"sub_product":["Checking <em>account</em>"]},"sort":[14.421889,"18280748"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7124122","_score":14.330582,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"I requested for this financial institution to file a dispute on certain unauthorized transactions that were made on my account because my personal information was compromised electronically recently while I was using their services making those transactions possible which I informed them through email. I was expecting a provisional credit for those disputes during the investigation process because most banks follow this procedure when a client has this sort of problem. \n\nHowever, instead of Chime solving my problem they failed to conduct a complete and thorough investigation on this matter. They denied my disputes within two days which was against their company policy because I was informed by Chime themselves through email that the investigation process can take up to 45 calendar days due to the fact that the merchant has to respond to the disputed transactions as well. They also abruptly closed my account permanently without explanation. When I try to contact them over the phone I am quickly directed by their automated system to speak to them solely through email most likely because my phone number is flagged for negative reasons at this point. \nThis company failed to follow the Electronic Funds Transfer Act ( EFTA ) which was passed by the U.S. Congress in 1978 and signed by President Jimmy Carter, to establish the rights and liabilities of consumers as well as the responsibilities of all participants in electronic funds transfer activities. The act was implemented in Federal Reserve Board Regulation E. The Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ) ( 15 USC 1693 et seq. ) of 1978 is intended to protect individual consumers engaging in electronic fund transfers ( EFTs ). \n\nThe initial date that I attempted to file these disputes was on XX/XX/XXXX.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-06-15T17:50:22.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"10468","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7124122","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Chime Financial Inc","date_received":"2023-06-15T17:31:26.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Problem using a debit or ATM card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I requested for this financial institution to file a dispute on certain unauthorized transactions that were made on my <em>account</em> because my personal information was compromised electronically recently while I was using their services making <em>those</em> transactions possible which I informed them through email. I was expecting a <em>provisional</em> <em>credit</em> for <em>those</em> disputes during the investigation process because most banks follow this procedure when a client has this sort of problem."],"product":["Checking or savings <em>account</em>"],"issue":["Managing an <em>account</em>"],"sub_product":["Checking <em>account</em>"]},"sort":[14.330582,"7124122"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"11782310","_score":14.277083,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"Follow-Up on Complaint Regarding Mishandling of Claims by Wells Fargo To Whom It May Concern, This letter serves as a follow-up to my previously submitted complaint concerning Wells Fargos mishandling of error claims on my closed account ending in XXXX. The reported errors involve unauthorized international transactions in XXXX and XXXX. I have provided additional supporting documentation, including audio recordings, notices, and timelines, to demonstrate Wells Fargos violations of **Regulation E ( 12 CFR Part 1005 ) ** and improper handling of these claims. \n\nBelow is a detailed account of the issues, along with references to specific CFPB regulations that substantiate my claims. I request immediate intervention by the CFPB to ensure compliance and address the financial harm caused by these violations. \n\n1. Failure to Investigate the Correct Account ( XXXX ) Despite my explicit claims regarding errors on account ending in XXXX, Wells Fargo closed those claims and issued decisions for transactions on an unrecognized account ending in XXXX. This demonstrates a failure to investigate the correct account as required under **12 CFR 1005.11 ( c ) ( 4 ) ** : * '' A financial institution shall investigate the alleged error promptly and determine, within 10 business days of receiving a notice of error, whether an error occurred. \" * This negligence has caused unnecessary delays and additional financial harm.\n\n**2. Failure to Issue Provisional Credits Within 10 Business Days** Under **12 CFR 1005.11 ( c ) ( 2 ) ( i ) **, Wells Fargo was obligated to issue provisional credits for the reported transactions if the investigation could not be completed within **10 business days**. To date, no provisional credits have been issued for the transactions reported on account XXXX, a clear violation of Regulation E. \n\n**3. Improper Combination of Multiple Claims** Wells Fargo combined my 10 separate claims into a single claim without providing any explanation or justification. While administrative grouping may be acceptable, this must not compromise the thoroughness of the investigation or the resolution of individual claims. Regulation E requires financial institutions to investigate each claim fully and transparently.\n\n**4. Lack of Transparency in Investigation and Decisions** Wells Fargo has failed to provide detailed explanations of their investigation, findings, and why decisions were issued for account XXXX instead of account XXXX. Under **12 CFR 1005.11 ( d ) ( 1 ) **, financial institutions are required to provide consumers with a written explanation of their investigation, including their determination and supporting evidence.\n\n**5. Mismanagement During XX/XX/year>, Call With Supervisor XXXX On XXXX XXXX, XXXX, I spoke with Wells Fargo supervisor XXXX regarding my claims . During this call : XXXX stated that I could not file a claim for account XXXX without a transaction statement. ** This is incorrect, as **12 CFR 1005.11 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( i ) ** allows a consumers error notice to be considered timely if it is received within 60 days of the periodic statement issuance, regardless of whether the consumer has a physical statement at the time of reporting.\n\n**She further stated that I needed to walk into a branch to file a claim for account XXXX. ** This contradicts **12 CFR 1005.11 ( b ) ( 2 ) **, which states : * '' The consumer may provide notice of error orally or in writing. \" * Consumers are not required to visit a branch to report errors, making this directive unnecessary and burdensome. \n\nXXXX transferred me to the **Executive Office** for escalation. However, the representative failed to file a complaint and instead attempted to transfer me to the **identity theft department**, which was unrelated to my claims. This demonstrates poor training and further delays in resolving my legitimate complaints. \n\n**6. Lack of Statement Delivery and Delays** On*XXXX XXXX, XXXX, I requested a statement for account XXXX to clarify the transactions in question. As of this letters date, I have not received the requested statement via regular mail or email. Wells Fargos failure to provide this statement in a timely manner further obstructs my ability to address the errors effectively.\n\n**7. Financial Harm and Immediate Demands** Wells Fargos mishandling of my claims, failure to issue provisional credits, and delays in resolution have caused significant financial and emotional distress. I respectfully request the following actions : XXXX. **Immediate issuance of provisional credits** for all transactions reported on account ending in XXXX, in compliance with **12 CFR 1005.11 ( c ) ( 2 ) ( i ) **.\n\n2. A thorough re-investigation of all claims related to account XXXX, with a detailed explanation of findings provided to me, as required under **12 CFR 1005.11 ( d ) ( 1 ) **.\n\n3. An explanation of why decisions were issued for the unrecognized account ending in XXXX instead of account XXXX. \n4. Assurance that Wells Fargo will comply fully with Regulation E for all future error claims.\n\n**Additional Evidence for Review** I have attached the following to substantiate my claims : - **Audio recordings** of conversations with Wells Fargo representatives from XXXX XXXX XXXX. \n- **Notices and correspondence** demonstrating Wells Fargos failures to meet regulatory obligations. \n- **Evidence of delays in statement delivery** and mishandling during the XX/XX/year>, call with XXXX. \n\nI trust the CFPB will review these materials thoroughly and take appropriate action to ensure compliance with Regulation E.\n\n**Conclusion** Wells Fargos actions represent a serious breach of their obligations under Regulation E and have caused me substantial financial and emotional harm. I request the CFPBs intervention to ensure accountability and resolution of this matter. \n\nThank you for your attention to this complaint. Please let me know if additional documentation or clarification is required.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-01-26T12:14:35.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"21117","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"11782310","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2025-01-26T11:43:29.000Z","state":"MD","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Banking errors"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Failure to Issue <em>Provisional</em> <em>Credits</em> <em>Within</em> 10 Business Days** Under **12 CFR 1005.11 ( c ) ( 2 ) ( i ) **, Wells Fargo was obligated to issue <em>provisional</em> <em>credits</em> for the reported transactions if the investigation could not be completed <em>within</em> **10 business days**. To date, no <em>provisional</em> <em>credits</em> have been issued for the transactions reported on <em>account</em> <em>XXXX</em>, a clear violation of Regulation E. \n\n**3."],"product":["Checking or savings <em>account</em>"],"issue":["Managing an <em>account</em>"],"sub_product":["Checking <em>account</em>"],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the <em>consumer</em> and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response"]},"sort":[14.277083,"11782310"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6636012","_score":13.828604,"_source":{"product":"Credit card or prepaid card","complaint_what_happened":"I am writing to file a complaint against Bank of America regarding my XXXX debit card account and my claim for fraudulent charges totaling approximately {$4000.00} due to becoming a victim of identity theft. Please reference my previous complaint # XXXX. \n\nI provided Bank of America with all the necessary information, including a police report detailing the fraudulent activity. However, after almost a month and without receiving any provisional credit, Bank of America denied my fraud claim without even looking at the police report. \n\nIt is important to note that my claim was due to identity theft, and that on XX/XX/2023, I faxed Bank of America the police report. I was not aware that it had not been received until yesterday, XX/XX/2023, the day before my claim was denied. As soon as I found this out, I faxed it again and included my confirmation that said it was delivered on XX/XX/2023. \n\nAdditionally, I would like to bring to your attention that I did not receive provisional credit, nor did I receive a written notice as per Regulation XXXX, which requires banks to provide customers with a notice of the results of their investigation within 10 business days. \n\nI find it unacceptable that Bank of America has failed to comply with the requirements of Regulation XXXX, and that I have not received the protection I am entitled to as a consumer. \n\nI am requesting that the CFPB investigate this matter and ensure that Bank of America complies with its obligations under Regulation XXXX and other applicable laws and regulations. \n\nHaving my identity stolen has left me and my children homeless and counting on the return of these funds. Only a handful of the many Bank of America employees showed any compassion or empathy for my situation and I find that disheartening. Many thanks to those few employees who did try to help me and give me some hope. \n\nI requested that Bank of amercia reconsiser my claim. I would like a prompt resolution to this matter and my funds returned to me before i am forced to file a complaint in court. \n\nThank you for your prompt attention to this matter.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-03-01T16:29:20.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase or transfer","sub_product":"Government benefit card","zip_code":"95624","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"6636012","timely":"No","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2023-03-01T15:59:04.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase or transfer"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["As soon as I found this out, I faxed it again and included my confirmation that said it was delivered on <em>XX/XX</em>/2023. \n\nAdditionally, I would like to bring to your attention that I did not receive <em>provisional</em> <em>credit</em>, nor did I receive a written notice as per Regulation <em>XXXX</em>, which requires banks to provide customers with a notice of the results of their investigation <em>within</em> 10 business days."],"product":["<em>Credit</em> card or prepaid card"],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the <em>consumer</em> and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response"]},"sort":[13.828604,"6636012"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16965169","_score":13.599292,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"On XX/XX/XXXX, someone made 3 charges to my chime debit card in the amounts of {$500.00}, {$300.00}, nd {$1000.00}. On XX/XX/XXXX, {$1000.00} was also taken nd all charges were made to crypto.com. There were also lots of other charges to crypto.com on XX/XX/XXXX that chime caught as suspicious nd asked me if I made nd I said I did not authorize those transactions, so I have no idea why chime allowed these through nd not the others. I contacted chime and reported these losses nd they said that I would be eligible for the provisional credit nd would receive money on the XXXX nd the XXXX of XXXX. They made separate claims for each date. On those dates I was notified that my claims were denied with no further explanation. So I called chime again and they said they would provide documentation on how the case was determined but they did not. However, they said I could appeal the denial with a police report. So I got a police report nd called chime back to reopen the cases with the police report and within XXXX hours was informed that no error had been made and no money would be reimbursed nd that the matter was closed. I also reported these losses loss to crypto.com and after providing lengthy details was basically told that they were not responsible for reimbursing me. Where is the protection of the consumer? I believe that chime is very much responsible for paying me back the money that was taken from my account, and any other bank would certainly do so! They even have record of the flurry of fraudulent charges that they themselves flagged and I declined just around the same time as the charges that they allowed. Please help as I have nowhere else to turn nd {$2800.00} is all the money I had.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-01T20:46:46.000Z","issue":"Problem with a lender or other company charging your account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"32952","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"16965169","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Chime Financial Inc","date_received":"2025-11-01T20:09:03.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Transaction was not authorized"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I contacted chime and reported these losses nd they said that I would be eligible for the <em>provisional</em> <em>credit</em> nd would receive money on the <em>XXXX</em> nd the <em>XXXX</em> of <em>XXXX</em>. They made separate claims for each date. On <em>those</em> dates I was notified that my claims were denied with no further explanation. So I called chime again and they said they would provide documentation on how the case was determined but they did not. However, they said I could appeal the denial with a police report."],"product":["Checking or savings <em>account</em>"],"issue":["Problem with a lender or other company charging your <em>account</em>"],"sub_product":["Checking <em>account</em>"]},"sort":[13.599292,"16965169"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"4425217","_score":13.453159,"_source":{"product":"Credit card or prepaid card","complaint_what_happened":"I have a valid PUA claim in California and was issued a prepaid card from Bank of America. In XXXX I noticed multiple fraudulent transactions on my account and immediately ( within 2 business days ) filed a claim with Bank of America on XX/XX/XXXX which outlined the unauthorized transactions in the amount of {$8000.00} ( most of which were ATM cash withdrawals ). The claim number they assigned me was XXXX. \n\nWithin 24 hours of initially filing an unauthorized/fraudulent transaction claim the bank decided to close the claim without any investigation into the incident which is a direct violation of the laws that protect consumers from abusive, unfair, deceptive acts and practices by Banks when dealing with customers fraudulent transaction claims. A letter was written and dated XX/XX/XXXX which outlined the reasons why my claim was closed. The letter was postmarked and mailed out on XX/XX/XXXX. The letter stated \" Your claim has been closed because we believe the account or the claim have been the subject of fraud or suspicious activity. '' I have provided a copy of the letter and post marked envelope as an attachment to this complaint. \n\nWithout any investigation into the claim it is unlawful of the bank make any type of final determination around the circumstances regarding the reported fraud which directly affect my rights as a consumer. My claim was closed and denied without there being any evidence to support that determination is unlawful and a perfect example of how Bank of America is engaging in abusive, unfair, deceptive acts or practices and taking advantage of its customers. \n\nBank of America is bound by a contract outlining the terms and conditions of using their services ( i.e the unemployment card which doesnt even have a microchip to protect consumers against fraud and unauthorized transactions ) which they have been in direct violation of the terms outlined within that user agreement. Bank of America is supposed to have a zero liability policy which they have failed to comply with. The bank has also failed to comply with multiple other terms within that user agreement along with the banks failure to comply with state and federal laws and regulations. \n\nWithout an investigation I was also denied my right to be reimbursed via provisional credit for any investigation that takes the bank longer than 10 days to complete. It is absolutely unacceptable that the bank is immediately closing and denying customer 's claims within 24 hours of the unauthorized transaction claim being filed without any evidence to support that determination. I requested a reconsideration of the claim on XX/XX/XXXX. The bank then took adverse action against me and froze my account on XX/XX/XXXX for undisclosed reasons, however, it is my firm belief that my account was frozen to prevent any real investigation into the report I had filed on XX/XX/XXXX. Following the freeze of my account I was unable to access the remaining Federal PUA funds on my card which caused me unnecessary hardship. \n\nDuring the time when my account was frozen I was not able to call Bank of America and get any answers about what is going on with my claim even thought I had requested for the bank to make a redetermination of the decision to close the claim prior to the banks adverse action of freezing my account. The bank failed to take any accountability for their decision to freeze my account and blamed the freeze on Cali EDD even though Cali Edd had no reason to request a freeze on my account. I have a valid claim and had verified my identity so Bank of America was merely trying to use Cali Edd as a scape goat when in fact they were the only ones responsible for taking adverse action against my account.\n\nI did in fact call Cali EDD to inquire and clarify about the freeze on my prepaid card and was told that Cali EDD did not request a freeze on my account and I needed to work it out with the bank. Thankfully Cali EDD stopped depositing money to my frozen account and started to send me weekly payments via check. It is also my firm belief that Bank of America attempted to use an account freeze as a way to bypass the laws and regulations which specifically outline the fraud investigation timeline and process the Bank is legally bound to abide by. I was not notified about my account being frozen by the Bank until early XXXX which is another violation of my rights as a consumer. \n\nThe PUA money I had on the card was unavailable for me to access while my account was frozen for a period of 4 months. Denying me access to funds I am legally entitled to collect per the CARES Act and other regulations is another example of Bank of America having ZERO regard for laws and regulations that are implemented to protect consumers from unfair, abusive, deceptive acts and practices by Financial Institutions. The hardship I have suffered as a direct result of the Banks negligence is unacceptable and should be considered a criminal act by Bank of America. \n\nThe fact my claim was automatically denied without any investigation is unlawful and is a violation of the The Electronic Fund Transfer Act, The Dodd-Frank Act, and the Prepaid Card Rule Regulation E. Bank of America then attempting to evade laws and regulations by freezing my account on their own directive without being asked to do so by Cali Edd is absolutely unacceptable and the bank needs to be held accountable for their abusive, unfair, deceptive acts and practices they have engaged in unlawfully.Between the dates of XX/XX/XXXX which is when my unauthorized transaction claim was filed and XXXX XXXX I made four requests to lift the freeze on my account. \n\nLegally I should have been provided a provisional credit to my account for any investigation that takes longer than 10 days to complete. The bank did not ever issue me that provisional credit I am entitled to receive nor did the Bank follow the required timeframe to complete an investigation. The bank unlawfully closed my claim without any investigation or supporting evidence to support that determination which directly affected my rights as a consumer. \n\nOn XXXX XXXX Bank of America lifted the freeze on my account. Once again I was not notified by the Bank of there being any changes to my account status. I called Bank of America on XX/XX/XXXX and during my call with the representative was finally told the freeze had been lifted. On that same day of XX/XX/XXXX I was finally able to request a third time that my claim be reconsidered by the bank. \n\nWhen I asked about being issued a provisional credit since the investigation had taken longer then 10 days to complete ( at this point it had been 2 days shy of 4 months since I had filed the unauthorized transaction claim ) I was told that because my claim was denied ( let me reiterate that it was closed the day after I initially filed the claim without any investigation ) and then reopened I am not entitled to receive any provisional credits for the amount of {$8000.00} and the bank isnt obligated to follow any timeline regarding the handling of customers fraudulent/unauthorized transactions. I am not aware of any laws or regulations which supports Bank of America 's refusal to issue me a provisional credit. The Bank is obligated to follow State and Federal law and throughout this entire ordeal had not been in compliance with any laws and regulations which outline how situations like this are to be handled. \n\nI received another from Bank of America on XX/XX/XXXX. In the letter the bank failed to address it's \" investigative findings '' as required by law or give me any further explanation other then the determination made by the bank on XX/XX/XXXX was correct and my claim is denied and closed. Every right I have as a consumer has been violated and the bank has failed to honor it's zero liability policy as well as follow laws and regulations which outline the process which B of A is obligated to abide by and they totally dropped the ball and were negligent in their handling of my claim Within a day of receiving the letter in the mail I called the bank and asked the bank for copies of the documents the bank relied on when making their final determination to deny my claim. I was told by the bank I am not entitled to view those documents. I also asked specific reasons why my claim was denied a second time which were also not provided to me. The only explanation I have received to the outcome of Bank of Americas investigation into the unauthorized transactions I reported was that their first denial of my claim was correct and the bank believes the account or the claim have been the subject of fraud or suspicious activity which is absolutely ridiculous especially because my Cali PUA claim is valid and I am still receiving payments via check. I am entitled to a letter outlining their investigative findings and the letter I received does not address anything of that sort. \n\nI know I am entitled to copies of the documents which the bank relied on in making their final determination which have not been provided to me per my request. The bank is not lawfully entitled to deny my request to inspect those documents and in doing so the bank in my opinion is committing a criminal act by violating my rights as a consumer. I am also legally entitled to know the reasons why my claim was denied and the banks outcome of their investigation. The explanation given to the reasoning behind why my claim was denied doesnt satisfy the banks legal obligations of providing me details of the outcome of their investigation and the supportive evidence to support how the bank was able to come to the final determination of the denial of my unauthorized transaction claim filed on XX/XX/XXXX. Most of the transactions I reported were {$1000.00} ATM withdrawals. Had the bank of done its do diligence and actually investigated the claim they should of been able to pull up ATM camera footage and would of been able to substantiate my claim as valid because I was not the one who made those withdrawals. \n\nI do not believe the bank preformed any real investigation and doesnt have documents or reasons to support their final determination being a denial of my claim. Logically that is the only reason I can conclude from the banks failure to comply with that legal requirement. The banks negligence and criminal acts and practices should entitle me to a full refund of the reported unauthorized fraudulent transaction in the amount of {$8000.00} and further Compensation for the hardship Bank of Americas negligence has caused me.","date_sent_to_company":"2021-06-02T20:20:31.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase or transfer","sub_product":"Government benefit card","zip_code":"85743","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"4425217","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2021-06-02T20:04:37.000Z","state":"AZ","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Charged for a purchase or transfer you did not make with the card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Legally I should have been provided a <em>provisional</em> <em>credit</em> to my <em>account</em> for any investigation that takes longer than 10 days to complete. The bank did not ever issue me that <em>provisional</em> <em>credit</em> I am entitled to receive nor did the Bank follow the required timeframe to complete an investigation. The bank unlawfully closed my claim without any investigation or supporting evidence to support that determination which directly affected my rights as a <em>consumer</em>."],"product":["<em>Credit</em> card or prepaid card"],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the <em>consumer</em> and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response"]},"sort":[13.453159,"4425217"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"4288164","_score":13.429958,"_source":{"product":"Credit card or prepaid card","complaint_what_happened":"Way 2 Go / Conduent / XXXX XXXX XX/XX/2021 : I called in to dispute fraudulent charges on my prepaid debit card. Was told they werent taking the details over the phone and that since that was to time consuming they would need me to send a written letter or fax stating the charges. The woman stated she would go ahead and shut the card down and the provisional would be there when I sent in the documents. \n\nXX/XX/2021 : I faxed in detailed report along with signed letter stating what happened with the card and how it came to be stolen. I received the fax back stating it was received. \n\nXX/XX/2021 : I call Way 2 Go card and ask how long the provisional will take. They stated they didnt receive the documents so there was nothing they could do. Maybe they just werent uploaded yet. I sent again just to be safe. Received return acknowledgement of receipt. \n\nXX/XX/2021 : Call again. Was told they didnt receive. I get angry, the company hung up on me as I said XXXX on the phone. I called back where they then put me on hold for 4hrs I have up and hung up. \n\nXX/XX/2021 : I receive a call from a manager at XXXX XXXX very nice woman, talked me through it. Explained everything. Told me the provisional would be there within 10 days of initial dispute to email her the documents personally and she would make sure they got attached to the file. I did exactly what she said received a read receipt, Sent them twice actually ... .waited for the day to arrive and nothing. Provisional never came. \n\nXX/XX/2021 : I call Way 2 Go again. Sat on hold after being hung up on each time after they got my claim number and realized who I was for 3 hrs total before giving up. \n\nXX/XX/2021 : Finally got someone on the phone. After arguing with her for roughly 1 hr literally about documents being sent and the laws on provisionals and my rights she gives me yet another email to send documents too. I literally stay on the phone until she receives them. Am told since its the weekend the dispute managers wont be able to look at it so it will be Monday before they can credit me. I accept this knowing they are a XXXX customer service company but am over it and decide to shut down the call. \n\nXX/XX/2021 : No credit. I call, get hung up on and then laughed at by a supervisor when I begin explaining the issue. Then quickly hung up on. This goes on all day. \n\nXX/XX/2021 : hung up on. \n\nXX/XX/2021 : was told they dont have documents. So no provisional credit. \n\nXX/XX/2021 : Same. \n\nXX/XX/2021 : No documents. No status on claim. No provisional and hung up on. \n\nI have every email receipt, their company even has a email they is sent back to verify identity when you send on documents. So they are quickly becoming fraudulent in my eyes by acting as is the papers arent there. What they did was wait until their time frame for sending them in was up and said they didnt get them because then they dont have to cover the loss. But Im well aware of my rights and they are clearly running a scam on their consumers. \n\nI feel like I should be getting myself a lawyer because this seems to be much bigger of a issue than I first thought. I pulled reviews on XXXX and they do this a lot. This seems to be Conduents thing and they seem to be scamming Americans out of Unemployment to the point that they have lawsuits all over them. Im not the first and bet Im close to the last because they wont get away with stealing peoples money any longer. I had more charges on my account today and will be disputing those this morning. Not that I will get any help with that.\n\nI dont think they need to have a contract with something so big as Oklahoma Government payments. What the hell is wrong with Oklahoma hiring a well known company who has been stealing money for years now?!\n\nIm on over {$1000.00}. Can you imagine how much money they are stealing? They prob took the original money and thought up a scheme to make it read as something else.\n\nI dont assume this will get my money back but this complaint is the first of about 20 Im doing today. By XXXX everyone will be aware of the scheme.","date_sent_to_company":"2021-04-10T11:22:19.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase or transfer","sub_product":"Government benefit card","zip_code":"741XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"4288164","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Conduent Incorporated","date_received":"2021-04-10T10:36:24.000Z","state":"OK","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase or transfer"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I get angry, the company hung up on me as I said <em>XXXX</em> on the phone. I called back where they then put me on hold for 4hrs I have up and hung up. \n\n<em>XX/XX</em>/2021 : I receive a call from a manager at <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> very nice woman, talked me through it. Explained everything. Told me the <em>provisional</em> would be there <em>within</em> 10 days of initial dispute to email her the documents personally and she would make sure they got attached to the file."],"product":["<em>Credit</em> card or prepaid card"]},"sort":[13.429958,"4288164"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16072402","_score":13.405859,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"Timeline, Issues, and Immediate Demands Client : XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) Bank : Citizens Bank , N.A. \nTotal Disputed Loss : ~ $ XXXX ( $ XXXX checking + $ XXXX savings ) Channels : XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX  ( and related processors, incl. XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX ) Police Report : XXXX Police XXXX Recent Letters : Citizens denial/closure letters dated XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX ( multiple claim IDs ) New Merchant Docs in Hand : XXXX XXXX XXXX  Transaction authorization history printouts ( with IPs/timestamps ) printed XXXX A. Chronology ( evidentiary timeline ) XXXX XXXX ( first unauthorized activity ) Series of {$100.00} ACH capture pulls to gambling merchants ( XXXX, etc. ). \n\nConsumer did not recognize ; amounts were small and interspersed with credits ; pattern not obvious from monthly view. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ( loss compounds ) Unauthorized debits continue from both checking and savings via XXXXmerchant rails XXXX \n\nTotal exposure approaches ~ $ XXXX ( consumer ledger ; later reflected in Citizens scattershot letters ). \n\nXX/XX/XXXX ( first disputes opened ) Consumer opens disputes in Citizens portal ( screenshots show multiple entries on XX/XX/XXXX ). \n\nBank mis-records total as ~ {$14000.00} ( portal shows this number ). \n\nPartial provisional credit of {$9000.00} issued, then ~ {$6000.00} clawed back without merchant Proof of Authorization ( POA ). \n\nXXXX XXXX ( improper denials ) Citizens issues denials citing pattern of use, XXXX rule, and terms & conditionswithout producing merchant POA or a written explanation identifying documents relied upon. \n\nSavings-account ACH items not properly opened or tracked in the portal. \n\nAug 2025, 2025 ( consumer reopens ; still fragmented ) XXXX new portal disputes opened XX/XX/XXXX for {$2000.00} / {$7000.00} / $ XXXX not the full total. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX : First wave of denial/closure letters mailed ( no merchant POA enclosed XXXX. \n\nXXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ( regulatory escalation ) CFPB complaint ( XXXX ) filed ; XXXX contacted. \n\nXXXX : Citizens Office of the Customer XXXX XXXX XXXX emails : will ask the XXXX for a XXXX review only if consumer sends a dispute letter and a physical police report copy. ( Email admits bank will not refile claims ; warns of duplicates ; invokes XXXX rule broadly. ) XXXX XXXX XXXX ( second wave of denials ) XX/XX/XXXX letters ( e.g., XXXX, XXXX ) deny {$2000.00} and {$7000.00} items ; bank relies on generic account history ; valid transactions language. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX letter ( example image provided ) denies {$8100.00} for XXXX across a large batch of claim IDs ; asserts based upon the enclosed documentation provided by the merchant the transactions are valid. Enclosures are internal processor/ACH logsnot merchant-executed POA. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX  ( new XXXX-party records appear ) Consumer receives XXXX XXXX authorization history printouts ( dated XX/XX/XXXX ; received by consumer XXXX ). \n\nShow : name/email/phone/address, Financial Institution Authorization ID, IP addresses ( e.g., XXXX ; XXXX ), timestamps, routing XXXX and masked account numbers, and many {$100.00} capture entries. \n\nNo consumer e-signature, wet signature, or voice authorization ; text looks like XXXX standard click-through wording. \n\nCitizens still denies and closes claims while continuing to withhold full provisional credit. \n\nPresent ( as of today ) Portal shows closed/withdrawn/denied statuses ; no full provisional credit for the total exposure ; no merchant POA produced for XXXX/other channels ; bank continues to rely on internal logs and the XXXX rule. \n\nB. Why Citizens conduct violates law Regulation E / EFTA ( 12 C.F.R. 1005.11 ) Provisional credit : Failure to issue full provisional credit within XXXX business days for timely-reported unauthorized EFTs ; improper clawback without furnishing the evidentiary basis. \n\nInvestigation & explanation : Denials without a written explanation identifying the documents relied upon ; refusal to provide copies of those documents. \n\nScope : Handling only XXXX and not XXXX is a partial investigation and noncompliant. \n\nACH/NACHA rules For consumer ACH debits, originators/ODFIs must retain written or similarly authenticated authorization. Internal bank/processor logs are not the customers authorization. The banks reliance on its own logs ( or XXXX generic form text without the customers affirmative authentication record ) doesnt satisfy POA. \n\nPennsylvania UDAP ( 73 P.S. 201-1 et seq. ) Unfair/deceptive practices : mis-recording claim amounts, fragmenting the claim, withholding POA, using legally irrelevant denial reasons ( pattern, boilerplate XXXX ), and refusing to correct known errors after regulatory notice. \n\nXXXX rule misapplied XXXX ( b ) limits liability for new unauthorized transactions occurring after XXXX days from delivery of the statement not reported, but it does not excuse the bank from investigating or from restoring amounts timely reported within the covered periods. Here, the bank : Accepted disputes XX/XX/XXXX onward ( timely for many XXXX debits and the trailing XXXX items that remained undiscovered due to offsetting credits ), Issued partial provisional credit, then reversed without POA, Now retro-uses XXXX days globally to shut the filenot permitted. \n\nXXXX Evidence in hand ( for exhibit tabs ) Citizens denial/closure letters dated XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX ( claim IDs including XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, the {$8100.00} denial batch, etc. ). \n\nPortal screenshots ( XX/XX/XXXX open ; XX/XX/XXXX $ XXXX $ XXXX {$6000.00} ; many Claim withdrawn/denied ). \n\nXXXX authorization histories ( printed XXXX ) with IPs/timestamps/authorization IDs ( no e-sig/voice ). \n\nPolice report XXXX. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) email XX/XX/XXXX demanding dispute letter + physical police report to seek XXXX review. \n\nPhone logs/recordings ( consumer notes multiple calls ; bank reps acknowledge errors and apologize ). \n\nXXXX Immediate demands to Citizens ( counsel to send ) Restore full provisional credit of $ XXXX across checking and savings pending a lawful investigation. \n\nCreate new, correct claims for the entire loss, preserving the audit trail of prior errors. \n\nProduce POA for each transaction within XXXX business days : signed/typed authorization record ; device fingerprint ; IP ; GPS ; login logs ; Trustly merchant references ; ODFI/ACH files ; and complete processor audit trail for every disputed debit ( XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, MVB, XXXX XXXX, etc XXXX ). \n\nWritten 1005.11 ( d ) explanation identifying the specific documents relied upon for each denial.\n\nLitigation hold on all recordings, emails, claim-system logs, and ACH data.\n\nIf Citizens fails : file suit under EFTA/Reg E and PA UDAP , seek actual and statutory damages, fees, and injunctive relief ; pursue expedited discovery and regulatory referrals ( CFPB/OCC/PA AG ).\n\nE. What to tell the lawyer ( quick brief to open the call ) My losses are ~ $ XXXX across checking and savings from XXXX XXXX XXXX. I opened disputes on XX/XX/XXXX. Citizens under-recorded the claim, gave me ~ $ XXXX provisional, clawed back ~ $ XXXX without POA, XXXX denied/closed on reasons like pattern and XXXX rule. \n\nI have Citizens letters dated XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX and XXXX authorization printouts ( IPs/timestamps ) printed XXXX e-signature or voice authorization. \n\nCitizens still hasnt produced merchant POA for XXXX. \n\nI want a preservation letter, provisional credit demand, and subpoenas to XXXX XXXX for POA logs. \n\nAlso need a Reg E-compliant written explanation and the complete documents relied upon.\n\nF. One-page dispute letter to Citizens ( attach with exhibits ) Subject : Formal Dispute ; Demand for Provisional Credit and Merchant POA ( Reg E 1005.11 ) To : Citizens Bank Office of the Customer / Claims Operations Re : Checking & Savings Unauthorized EFTs ( $ XXXX total ) I dispute all unauthorized electronic fund transfers described in the attached timeline and exhibits. Citizens prior denials and clawback were issued without producing merchant proof of authorization ( POA ) and without a Reg E-compliant written explanation identifying the documents relied upon. \n\nDemand ( XXXX business days ) : Restore full provisional credit of $ XXXX ; Open corrected claims for the full loss ; Produce POA and the documents relied upon for each transaction ( signed/typed authorization ; IP ; device/geo ; login logs ; XXXX/processor files ; ODFI ACH entries ) ; Confirm litigation hold on all recordings, emails, ACH and claim-system logs. \n\nFailure to comply will result in litigation under EFTA/Reg E and PA UDAP , and further CFPB/OCC/PA AG escalation.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-09-22T13:26:40.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"19014","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"16072402","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CITIZENS FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.","date_received":"2025-09-22T12:47:38.000Z","state":"PA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Deposits and withdrawals"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Why Citizens conduct violates law Regulation E / EFTA ( 12 C.F.R. 1005.11 ) <em>Provisional</em> <em>credit</em> : Failure to issue full <em>provisional</em> <em>credit</em> <em>within</em> <em>XXXX</em> business days for timely-reported unauthorized EFTs ; improper clawback without furnishing the evidentiary basis. \n\nInvestigation & explanation : Denials without a written explanation identifying the documents relied upon ; refusal to provide copies of <em>those</em> documents."],"product":["Checking or savings <em>account</em>"],"issue":["Managing an <em>account</em>"],"sub_product":["Checking <em>account</em>"]},"sort":[13.405859,"16072402"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":120,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":120}]}},"product":{"doc_count":120,"product":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Checking or savings account","doc_count":75,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Checking account","doc_count":69},{"key":"Other banking product or service","doc_count":3},{"key":"Savings account","doc_count":3}]}},{"key":"Credit card or prepaid card","doc_count":12,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"General-purpose prepaid card","doc_count":6},{"key":"Government benefit card","doc_count":4},{"key":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","doc_count":12,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Mobile or digital wallet","doc_count":8},{"key":"Debt settlement","doc_count":1},{"key":"Domestic (US) money transfer","doc_count":1},{"key":"International money transfer","doc_count":1},{"key":"Virtual currency","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Credit card","doc_count":11,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","doc_count":11}]}},{"key":"Prepaid card","doc_count":6,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Government benefit card","doc_count":5},{"key":"General-purpose prepaid card","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Vehicle loan or lease","doc_count":2,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Loan","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Debt collection","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Auto debt","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Payday loan, title loan, personal loan, or advance loan","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Installment loan","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"issue":{"doc_count":120,"issue":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Managing an account","doc_count":50,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Problem using a debit or ATM card","doc_count":21},{"key":"Funds not handled or disbursed as instructed","doc_count":9},{"key":"Banking errors","doc_count":8},{"key":"Deposits and withdrawals","doc_count":6},{"key":"Cashing a check","doc_count":2},{"key":"Problem making or receiving payments","doc_count":2},{"key":"Fee problem","doc_count":1},{"key":"Problem accessing account","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a lender or other company charging your account","doc_count":20,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Transaction was not authorized","doc_count":19},{"key":"Money was taken from your account on the wrong day or for the wrong amount","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a purchase or transfer","doc_count":9,"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":5},{"key":"Charged for a purchase or transfer you did not make with the card","doc_count":4}]}},{"key":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","doc_count":9,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement","doc_count":8},{"key":"Card was charged for something you did not purchase with the card","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Fraud or scam","doc_count":5,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Problem caused by your funds being low","doc_count":5,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Overdrafts and overdraft fees","doc_count":3},{"key":"Non-sufficient funds and associated fees","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Unauthorized transactions or other transaction problem","doc_count":4,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Other transaction problem","doc_count":3,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Unexpected or other fees","doc_count":3,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Fees or interest","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Problem with fees","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Problem getting a card or closing an account","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Trouble closing card","doc_count":1},{"key":"Trouble getting, activating, or registering a card","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Advertising","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Changes in terms from what was offered or advertised","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Debt was paid","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":"Getting a loan or lease","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Changes in terms mid-deal or after closing","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Managing the loan or lease","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Problem with additional products or services purchased with the loan","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem when making payments","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Trouble using the card","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Trouble using the card to spend money in a store or online","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Trouble using your card","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Can't use card to make purchases","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"timely":{"doc_count":120,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":114},{"key":"No","doc_count":6}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":120,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":98},{"key":"Closed with monetary relief","doc_count":20},{"key":"Closed with non-monetary relief","doc_count":2}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":120,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":120}]}},"company":{"doc_count":120,"company":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","doc_count":18},{"key":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","doc_count":14},{"key":"Chime Financial Inc","doc_count":10},{"key":"NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","doc_count":9},{"key":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":6},{"key":"AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY","doc_count":5},{"key":"CITIBANK, N.A.","doc_count":5},{"key":"UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION","doc_count":5},{"key":"Block, Inc.","doc_count":4},{"key":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","doc_count":4},{"key":"TD BANK US HOLDING COMPANY","doc_count":4},{"key":"Netspend Corporation","doc_count":3},{"key":"Paypal Holdings, Inc","doc_count":3},{"key":"CITIZENS FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.","doc_count":2},{"key":"Comerica","doc_count":2},{"key":"GOLDMAN SACHS BANK USA","doc_count":2},{"key":"KEYCORP","doc_count":2},{"key":"ALLIANT CREDIT UNION","doc_count":1},{"key":"ALLY FINANCIAL INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"BANKMOBILE TECHNOLOGIES, INC","doc_count":1},{"key":"Conduent Incorporated","doc_count":1},{"key":"Consumer Portfolio Services, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Credit Karma, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"FIRST CITIZENS BANCSHARES, INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"FISERV FINXACT CORE","doc_count":1},{"key":"FinCo Services Inc DBA Current","doc_count":1},{"key":"Foris DAX, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"HUNTINGTON NATIONAL BANK, THE","doc_count":1},{"key":"Indie Technology DBA Found","doc_count":1},{"key":"LendingPoint Holdings LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"OneMain Finance Corporation","doc_count":1},{"key":"PNC Bank N.A.","doc_count":1},{"key":"ROBINHOOD MARKETS INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"SOFI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"SUNTRUST BANKS, INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL","doc_count":1},{"key":"TRUIST FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"U.S. BANCORP","doc_count":1},{"key":"ZIONS BANCORPORATION","doc_count":1}]}},"state":{"doc_count":120,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"CA","doc_count":27},{"key":"TX","doc_count":11},{"key":"FL","doc_count":10},{"key":"NY","doc_count":7},{"key":"AZ","doc_count":6},{"key":"MA","doc_count":5},{"key":"MN","doc_count":5},{"key":"PA","doc_count":5},{"key":"OH","doc_count":4},{"key":"GA","doc_count":3},{"key":"LA","doc_count":3},{"key":"MD","doc_count":3},{"key":"MI","doc_count":3},{"key":"OK","doc_count":3},{"key":"TN","doc_count":3},{"key":"ID","doc_count":2},{"key":"NC","doc_count":2},{"key":"NJ","doc_count":2},{"key":"OR","doc_count":2},{"key":"VA","doc_count":2},{"key":"WI","doc_count":2},{"key":"AK","doc_count":1},{"key":"DC","doc_count":1},{"key":"IN","doc_count":1},{"key":"MO","doc_count":1},{"key":"MT","doc_count":1},{"key":"NM","doc_count":1},{"key":"NV","doc_count":1},{"key":"SC","doc_count":1},{"key":"WA","doc_count":1},{"key":"WV","doc_count":1}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":120,"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":51},{"key":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","doc_count":10}]}},"tags":{"doc_count":120,"tags":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Servicemember","doc_count":16},{"key":"Older American","doc_count":9}]}}},"_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":[13.405859,"16072402"],"3":[11.4270525,"17864994"],"4":[9.056531,"16853805"],"5":[6.9020376,"18405340"]}}}