{"took":149,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":13,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18636976","_score":16.006594,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"I am submitting this complaint and formal dispute regarding Jefferson Capital Systems , LLC for contacting me through email without my consent, which I believe violates Regulation F under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ). At no point did I provide Jefferson Capital Systems with permission to contact me via email. Despite this, on XX/XX/year>, I received an unsolicited collection email from XXXX regarding an alleged XXXX XXXX XXXX account. \nThis email was sent to my personal XXXX address without my authorization or consent. I have never opted in, subscribed, consented, or otherwise agreed to receive collection communications through email from this company. Regulation F requires debt collectors to have direct, prior consent to use email as a communication channel. Jefferson Capital did not have such consent. \nThe email contained information about an alleged debt, including the creditor name, account number, balance, and instructions to dispute or pay. Sending this level of sensitive financial information through an unconsented channel exposes me to privacy risks and constitutes a communication method I did not authorize. \nAdditionally, the email included language that I found intimidating and coercive, such as : We will use any information you give us to help collect the debt. \n\nThis phrasing is unnecessarily broad and creates the impression that anything I say or do will be used against me. It is not neutral disclosure, it is psychological pressure. This type of language is concerning and misleading, and I believe Jefferson Capital made that statement to try and intimidate me. \nThe email also encouraged me to Reply DISPUTE directly to the message. This is misleading because it creates the false impression that replying to an email is sufficient to trigger full validation rights under the FDCPA. Email disputes can be ignored, lost, or treated as informal, and this instruction appears designed to steer me away from submitting proper written disputes that would legally require Jefferson Capital to pause all collection activity. \nFinally, the email included an unsubscribe link, which is problematic because it misleads me into believing that unsubscribing will stop collection activity. Which creates confusion about my actual ceasecommunication rights under federal law. \nI am requesting that the CFPB investigate Jefferson Capital Systems for : - Contacting me through email without my consent - Violating Regulation Fs requirements for electronic communication - Sending sensitive debt information through an unauthorized channel without my consent - Using intimidating and coercive language - Providing misleading instructions about how to dispute a debt - Including an unsubscribe link that causes confusion about my rights- Using communication methods that may mislead consumers about their dispute and ceasecontact rights Because this communication was unlawful, and unauthorized, I am requesting that Jefferson Capital Systems : - Delete the account from their system entirely, as they have forfeited their right to attempt to collect on this alleged debt. \n- Refrain from selling the debt, and refrain reporting the debt to all 3 credit bureaus - Cease all communication with me through any unauthorized channel - Confirm in writing that they have removed my email address from all systems - Provide documentation showing how they obtained my email address I am also requesting that the CFPB require Jefferson Capital to explain how they ensure compliance with Regulation Fs consent requirements for email communication, and how they prevent unauthorized digital contact with consumers. \nThis communication caused me distress, violated my privacy, and disregarded my rights under federal law. I am requesting full regulatory review and corrective action.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-01-11T18:42:07.000Z","issue":"Communication tactics","sub_product":"I do not know","zip_code":"27106","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18636976","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CL Holdings LLC","date_received":"2026-01-11T18:26:44.000Z","state":"NC","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Used obscene, profane, or other abusive language"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["contact with <em>consumers</em>."],"issue":["<em>Communication</em> tactics"]},"sort":[16.006594,"18636976"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"19653781","_score":13.422253,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"I am filing this complaint due to repeated inconsistent and harmful handling of my credit accounts by Capital One, despite a flawless payment history and XXXX delinquencies. \n\nI have never had a late payment not on this account or any account in my credit history. My credit reports reflect no XXXX-day delinquencies, ever. \n\nCapital One has provided multiple conflicting explanations regarding the closure of my accounts : 1. I was told my spending activity was not consistent with policy.\n\n2. I was later told the closure was due to a business decision. \n3. In response to a prior CFPB complaint ( Case XXXX XXXXXXXX ), Capital One referenced an alleged hardship communication dated XX/XX/2019 I did not request hardship assistance. \nI was never enrolled in a hardship program. \nI was never on a payment arrangement. \nI was never XXXX  days past due. \n\nThese explanations are materially inconsistent with one another. \n\nAfter closing my accounts, Capital One continued sending me pre-approval and approval solicitations for new credit products. Relying on one such approval in the past, I opened a new account. That account was immediately shut down shortly after opening. \n\nThis sequence caused measurable harm to my credit profile due to : A XXXX  inquiry A new account opening Immediate closure Reduced available credit Impact to utilization and average age of accounts Credit score reduction Despite this prior experience, Capital One continues to send approval and pre-approval solicitations. \n\nIf I am not eligible for Capital One credit products due to internal determinations, then continued solicitation is misleading and exposes me to repeated potential harm. \n\nIf I am eligible, then immediate shutdown following approval is inconsistent and harmful. \n\nA consumer should not be encouraged to apply for credit, incur a XXXX  inquiry, and then have the account revoked shortly after approval. \n\nI am requesting the following : 1. A clear, singular written explanation reconciling all prior reasons provided for account closure. \n2. Full documentation of any internal risk determinations, including account notes and classifications. \n3. Confirmation of whether I am eligible for Capital One credit products.\n\n4. Removal of any internal flags inconsistent with my spotless payment history.\n\n5. Reinstatement of my prior credit limits and accounts under original terms OR issuance of replacement accounts reflecting equivalent limits and positive history, without requiring a new XXXX  credit inquiry. \n\nThis is not a request for new credit. It is a request to be made whole following inconsistent and harmful account practices despite a perfect payment history. \n\nI am seeking fair, transparent, and consistent treatment.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-02-20T15:28:04.000Z","issue":"Closing your account","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"76227","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"19653781","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","date_received":"2026-02-20T15:19:33.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Company closed your account"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["A <em>consumer</em> should not be <em>encouraged</em> to apply for credit, incur a XXXX  inquiry, and then have the account revoked shortly after approval. \n\nI am requesting the following : 1. A clear, singular written explanation reconciling all prior reasons provided for account closure. \n2. Full documentation of any internal <em>risk</em> determinations, including account notes and classifications. \n3. Confirmation of whether I am eligible for Capital One credit products.\n\n4."]},"sort":[13.422253,"19653781"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"9877640","_score":11.8671875,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"Dear Sir/Madam, My name is XXXX XXXX XXXX and I am writing to express my deep concern and dissatisfaction regarding CashApps recent actions. I am both disappointed and shocked by the bank 's handling of a critical situation involving a significant money transfer from my account to scammers. \nSince XX/XX/year> I have revealed that I was sophisticatedly scammed and deceived. A total amount of XXXX USD was transferred from my account utilizing CashApps services to scammers using trickery, manipulation, advanced money extraction techniques, and lies. \nThe History of the Scam Events : I fell victim to an Online trading company, that misrepresented itself as a legitimate brokerage offering me to make great returns on so-called Online trading with little to no risk. I thought I was going on a legitimate investment track, and I would like to mention that their methods were illegal, manipulative, against regulation, and very questionable. \nSeveral individuals approached me on XXXX regarding investments in cryptocurrency. \nAfter conversing with one particular individual named XXXX XXXX, who had several mutual friends and a background supposedly similar to mine before entering the XXXX  space, I decided to invest. XXXX XXXX claimed to work for XXXX, and my account appeared to be listed on XXXX. \nInitially, everything seemed legitimate. Encouraged by apparent success, I was pushed to invest my own funds. It is important to mention that I made several transfers through my CashApp banking account, totaling a substantial amount of XXXX USD, with the expectation of significant returns on my investment. \nOver six months, I invested a total of {$16000.00}, with an expected withdrawal amount of {$66000.00} due about two weeks ago. \nXXXX informed me that I needed to pay {$6000.00} in taxes, which I started paying in installments. \nAfter paying {$5800.00}, I received an email, purportedly from XXXX, indicating that the tax amount was actually {$10000.00}. Suspecting fraud, I accused both XXXX and the email sender of being scammers and now believe I have lost everything. \nFeeling coerced and intimidated, I reluctantly proceeded with the requested transfers under the false impression that I was fulfilling legal obligations. However, as the demands for more funds persisted, and with the realization that I was being manipulated, I refused to comply any further. \nSubsequently, I discovered a company called XXXX XXXX XXXX, which claimed to have recovered my entire investment. They requested a \" gas tax '' and a 10 % fee. However, after consulting with an expert from XXXX, I was advised that this company is also likely a scam. \nRegrettably, after I sent the funds to this company, I could not access the platform anymore. \nAll communication was ceased, leaving me feeling betrayed and financially vulnerable. This unfortunate experience underscores the importance of vigilance and education in the digital age, especially when dealing with financial transactions and personal information online. \nFeeling increasingly suspicious about these escalating demands, I expressed my concerns and requested a withdrawal multiple times. However, instead of addressing my concerns, the company simply banned my account, leaving me unable to access my funds. My naiveness was sophisticatedly used- the Company never acted in my best interests. \nPlease note that I came through unethical and sophisticated selling techniques and was pushed to invest the funds in a fake trading platform. My mental and financial well-being have been maliciously affected. The funds were transferred to a wallet being sure I was dealing with a legal entity. As I found out later, the company I dealt with appeared to be fake. \nThe Scam Company Violations : I requested to file a dispute regarding the merchant and asked CashApp to assist me in recalling the funds back to my card for the following reasons : 1. The Company performed misrepresentation - pretending to be regulated ( fictitious agents names and locations ).\n\n2. The Company prohibited my ability to withdraw my funds.\n\n3. The Company was guaranteeing returns/yields ( unrealistic ones ).\n\n4. The Company furnished me with bonuses- which are not allowed to be given.\n\n5. My money was not held in a segregated account.\n\n6. The Company did not advertise/disclose/was not transparent enough regarding the statistical data representing the percentage of total client losses at the company.\n\n7. The Company did not mention the commission and overnight swaps.\n\n8. The Company did not read the risk disclosure prior to my deposit ( s ). \nCashApp`s Negligence : 1 ) CashApp has not fulfilled the Complaints handling Policy and showed a lack of accuracy while handling my dispute. \nPlease note that it was in XXXX, when I reached the Bank with my chargeback letter, notifying it about the fraud itself and requesting to investigate my case and recall/reverse the transactions or provide me with the reimbursement helping to mitigate the losses I have carried ( as you know, preparing and collecting documents & evidence is a time-consuming process ). These countless attempts of seeking justice, clarifying all the transactions in question, resulted in the denial of my request I doubt how attentively CashApp comes to clients` complaints/disputes if it allows itself to disregard the clients in such a sophisticated manner. \n2 ) The Bank has neglected its obligation to monitor the client`s transactions As a financial institution dealing with the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions regulation, CashApp is obligated to follow XXXX  Regulations as a member of this organization. I hope the CashApp understood the risks that might occur while making transactions with such entities, as it seems to me that they neglected XXXX risk indicators ( that are recognized as the global anti-money laundering ( AML  ) and counter-terrorist financing ( CTF ) ) : The corporate structure of a trading entity appears unusually complex and illogical, such as the involvement of shell companies registered in high-risk jurisdictions. A trading entity is registered or has offices in a jurisdiction with weak AML/CFT compliance ; A trading entity, or its owners or senior managers, appear in negative news, e. g. past money laundering schemes, fraud, tax evasion, other criminal activities, or ongoing or past investigations or convictions ; A trading entitys lack of an online presence suggests business activity inconsistent with the stated line of business, e. g. the website of a trading entity contains mainly boilerplate material taken from other websites, or the website indicates a lack of knowledge regarding the particular product or industry in which the entity is trading ; A trading entity engages in complex trade deals involving numerous third-party intermediaries in incongruent lines of business. \nTherefore, I would like to inquire why CashApp transferred money to an entity, which does NOT hold any license, knowing that it could be risky. I was never informed about this fact by the Bank`s employees, which gives me reasons to consider that there is a lack of information provided from the Banks side. If the Bank provided me with this information, clearly and simply explaining all the risks, I would follow the Bank`s advice - and here I do consider we speak again about the lack of informing the clients by the professional, trained bank`s staff.\n\nAdditionally, I do suppose that CashApp has breached its Terms and Conditions as it informs its clients about warnings to prevent suspicious transactions. However, I have never received any kind of alert/warning from the bank`s side, nor was I ever told about the risks that might occureven though the transactions ( as it could be seen from my bank statements ) were international oneswhich indicates the high possibility of money laundering to take place. \nPlease note that I was never even asked about the purpose of transferring the funds. Thus, I do consider that the Bank failed to conduct ( enhanced ) customer due diligence and monitoring of transactions. I would like to emphasize that I have not received any notifications/emails/calls from the Bank`s employees. I informed the bank about the fraud I had fallen victim to ; therefore, I have certain questions about how CashApp was ensuring the security of my transactions. \nThe only thing I received was instructions on how to protect myself in the future, which is bigger ; however, in my perception, it has nothing to do with the security of clients` funds. I do believe that none of the financial institutions would ever transfer money to any terroristic organization ( or any person affiliated with it ) even if those transactions would be validated by the bank. \nRecall reason descriptions : The following are the reasons for the allegations against the companies : 1 ) Goods or Services Were Either Not as Described or Defective : Please pay attention to the fact that the companies misrepresented their services and offers and appeared to be scams. The only things I received from the Company were fake promises and lies. \n2 ) Questionable Merchant Activity : You have to know that the merchant engages in deceptive practices, such as misleading advertising and false promises, leading to disputes regarding the legitimacy of the transactions. The merchant has to be checked if it operates in an industry known for a high incidence of fraud or chargebacks, or if it has a history of complaints or negative reviews related to their business practices.The Company failed to fulfill its obligations simply by stealing my funds. \n3 ) Suspected Fraudulent Activity : Upon further investigation and due diligence, I have reason to believe that the recipient entity may be engaged in fraudulent activities. This suspicion is based on discrepancies in communication, irregularities in transaction procedures, and concerns raised by other affected parties. \nXXXX ) XXXX and XXXX XXXX : The recipient entity 's activities XXXX have potential legal and regulatory implications, including, but not limited to, violations of anti-money laundering ( AML ) and counter-terrorism financing ( CTF ) laws. By recalling the transfer, we aim to mitigate any associated risks and ensure compliance with relevant laws and regulations. \nXXXX ) XXXX XXXX of Transactions : As the global financial regulations state, the account holder did not authorize or participate in a transaction conducted in a XXXX Not XXXX environment. Alternatively, a fraudulent transaction was completed in a XXXX Not XXXX environment using an account number for which no valid card was issued or is outstanding, and no authorization was obtained. The companies operate like they are unregulated, siphoning money away from unsuspecting victims using trickery, false promises, and bullying to what looks like an affiliate with scammers. \nDesired Outcome : I request the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to address my dispute and resolve this matter immediately and urgently. \nI demand CashApp reimburse me for the amount of XXXX USD, as I have fully been released of liability. I consider CashApp as the responsible party for losing my funds in case it complies with AML/CTF prescriptions . \nI request CashApp maintain a high quality of customer care and service and act to improve the support chat and team as well as deal with the relevant individuals who did not perform their jobs appropriately. \nIm requesting the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to assist me because CashApp is not willing to resolve my complaint. \nPlease find all the attached letters sent to/received from CashApp, along with the supporting documents and correspondence. \nThank you for your assistance in advance. \nRespectfully, XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2024-08-21T16:02:31.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Mobile or digital wallet","zip_code":"596XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"9877640","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Block, Inc.","date_received":"2024-08-21T15:51:27.000Z","state":"MT","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This suspicion is based on discrepancies in <em>communication</em>, irregularities in transaction procedures, and concerns raised by other affected parties. \nXXXX ) XXXX and XXXX XXXX : The recipient entity 's <em>activities</em> XXXX have potential legal and regulatory implications, including, but not limited to, violations of anti-money laundering ( AML ) and counter-terrorism financing ( CTF ) laws."]},"sort":[11.8671875,"9877640"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16668094","_score":11.665855,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"1. My complaint starts when I received a letter from Chase stating my account was closing. Chase stated there was concerning activity and I was instructed by Chase in writing to destroy all cards and checks associated with the accounts ( attached ). \n\nA. The concerning activity I attempted to appeal this decision through the CFPB to get directly in contact with the XXXX XXXX but was met with a response that their decision was remaining the same. In their response, I noticed they revised their original statement referring to it as unexpected activity when responding to my appeal ( attached ). I would like clarification on this inconsistency, as the original terminology used is associated with accusations, which brings me to the next part of my complaint ; When a Chase XXXX representative previously accused me of money laundering when discussing my personal transfers. This was documented as a complaint with Chase, and after making them aware of that statement, two Chase managers called me directly about the issue, attempting to discuss the statement that was made. Now I have received a letter from Chase, after a transfer that was performed, dated the same day, providing notice that my accounts will be closing. A transfer that was performed in accordance with Chases published guidance, and yet Chase ultimately blamed me for activity being concerning that it itself directed and encouraged.. I will be attaching Chases own How to Avoid a Fee terms ( attached ). \n\nB. Credit Card Fraud and Possible Identity Theft I followed the instructions in the letter directly as stated, then discarded all the material. On XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX XXXX   EST, a Chase representative contacted me to verify transaction activity and I then realized I fell victim to fraud. I explained the letter I received and having trouble destroying a metal card, but ultimately followed the instructions on the letter. The representative claims she has no idea what I was talking about and intimidated me for following instructions by Chase then later stated during the call that my Social Security number and personal data may have been compromised due my actions the very outcome that resulted from following Chases own written instructions. \n\n- This sequence of events reflects negligence and a deceptive practice under the Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts or Practices ( UDAAP ) provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act ( 12 U.S.C. 5531, 5536 ). Furthermore, because Chases instructions directly created a risk of unauthorized use of my account and personal data, this also implicates Regulation E ( 12 C.F.R. 1005.6 ), which governs consumer liability and bank obligations following unauthorized transactions.\n\n2. Chases failure to deliver communications, including my account statements, through my authorized electronic communication channel, and the unauthorized disclosure of sensitive financial information 1. I was enrolled in Chase Banks paperless statements program, which required me to provide an email address for electronic communications.\n\n2. My original email address was later compromised, so I updated my email address in Chase Banks online system. Chase acknowledged and confirmed the updated email, and communications have been successfully sent to the new email since then. My old email was removed from my account profile and is no longer authorized. \n\n- When I updated my email address, this update served as an express revocation of consent for Chase to send any further electronic communications or statements to my previous email address. Chase acknowledged this change, and the old address no longer appeared in my online banking profile.\n\n3. After this update, I opened a new account with Chase, using the updated email address on the application. However, Chase sent communications, including statements, for this accountincluding account type, product type, balances, due dates, statement details, and the last 4 digits of my cardto my old, unauthorized email address. An address never provided for this account.\n\n4. I did not receive certain communications and statements at any authorized communication channel, preventing me from monitoring my accounts and accessing financial records I am entitled to. \n\nLegal and Regulatory Basis for Complaint 1. E-SIGN Act / Paperless Agreement Violation : Under the E-SIGN Act, electronic records must be delivered in a manner that ensures the customer can reliably access them. Chase failed to deliver statements to my authorized email, violating my rights under the paperless agreement.\n\n2. UDAAP Unfair and Abusive Practices ( Dodd-Frank Act 5531, 5536 ) : - Unfair : Chases failure to send statements to my authorized email caused substantial harm by preventing access to account information necessary for financial management.\n\n- Deceptive : Chase represented that my email information had been updated and that all paperless statements would be sent to my authorized address, which did not occur. - Abusive : Sending sensitive account information to an old, unauthorized\nemail interfered with my ability to manage my finances and exposed me to potential fraud risk.\n\nLegal basis for revoked consent A. E-SIGN Act Under 15 U.S.C. 7001 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( C ) ( ii ), consumers have the right to withdraw consent for electronic delivery at any time, and the institution must honor that withdrawal within a reasonable period.\n\nBy sending statements to the revoked address, Chase : * Ignored a withdrawn consent, and * Failed to provide effective electronic delivery as required by E-SIGN.\n\nUnder 15 U.S.C. 7001 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( C ) ( ii ), I had the right to withdraw or modify my consent to receive records at a specific electronic address. My email update and Chases acknowledgment constituted withdrawal of consent for the prior email address. By continuing to send records to that revoked address, Chase failed to comply with the E-SIGN Acts consumer consent and withdrawal provisions. \n\nB. Regulation P ( GLBA, 12 C.F.R. 1016.13 ) Regulation P also ties consent and authorization to nonpublic personal information sharing. Once you revoke consent, the bank must stop sending or disclosing information to that contact channel.\n\nUnder 12 C.F.R. 1016.13, financial institutions must respect consumer directions regarding disclosure and delivery of nonpublic personal information. My revocation of consent for th\ne prior email address made any further disclosures to that channel unauthorized under Regulation P.\n\n3. Violation of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act ( GLBA ) and Regulation P ( 15 U.S.C. 68016809 ; 12 C.F.R. Part 1016 ) - The GLBA and Regulation P require financial institutions to protect the confidentiality of nonpublic personal information ( NPI ) and to ensure that disclosures are made only to authorized recipients.\n\n- Chases continued transmission of account statements containing personal and financial details to an unauthorized, compromised email address constitutes a failure to safeguard NPI and an unauthorized disclosure under these provisions.\n\n4. Violation of the FTC Safeguards Rule ( 16 C.F.R. Part 314 ) - The Safeguards Rule, issued under the GLBA, requires financial institutions to maintain appropriate procedures to protect customer information from unauthorized access or disclosure.\n\n- Chases failure to prevent statements from being sent to an unauthorized email shows a breakdown in internal safeguards and information-security controls.\n\n5. Potential Violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act ( ECPA 18 U.S.C. 2511 ) - The ECPA prohibits the intentional transmission of electronic communications containing personal data to unauthorized or unintended recipients. By sending confidential statements to a deauthorized, compromised email address, Chase may have violated the ECPAs prohibition against the unauthorized disclosure of protected electronic communications.\n\n1. Following the account closure, I contacted Chase to request copies of my account statements, since I never received them through any authorized channel which banks are federally required to retain and make available. The representative named XXXX stated on a recorded line that I would need to step into a branch to receive my statements, despite me explaining that I was outside the country and unable to appear in person. When I informed her that such a requirement obstructs my rights as a consumer, she replied that it was procedure and then abruptly ended the call. \n\nAt the time my accounts were active, I was enrolled in paperless statements and regularly accessed them through Chase Online Banking. Since the closure, Chase has revoked my ability to view past statements electronically and now refuses to issue them physically by mail, thereby denying me access by both methods. This is not only unreasonable it is directly inconsistent with federal regulations requiring that consumers be able to access or reproduce their own account records within the retention period. \n\nChases refusal to provide statements through a reasonable and accessible means constitutes a violation of multiple consumer protection and recordkeeping laws, including : * 12 C.F.R. 1005.9 ( Regulation E ) and 12 C.F.R. 1030.6 ( Regulation DD ) Failure to provide periodic statement information as required for consumer accounts * 12 U.S.C. 5531 ( UDAAP ) Unfair restriction of access to financial records that causes harm the consumer can not reasonably avoid * 15 U.S.C. 7001 et seq. ( E-SIGN Act ) Denial of continued access to electronic disclosures and statements after consent was established Limiting statement access only to an in-branch process especially when the customer can not physically appear and previously received paperless electronic disclosures is an unfair and obstructive practice under federal law. It prevents the consumer from reviewing transactions, filing disputes, and maintaining accurate financial records, all of which constitute substantial harm. \n\nCompounding these issues, these incidents form a clear pattern of poor data handling, noncompliance, and consumer harm. I followed Chases instructions in good faith from discarding my cards and checks as directed, to maintaining updated contact information in my profile. Each time, Chases own actions resulted in harm, exposure, and blame directed at the customer. \n\nThe incident involving Chases unauthorized use of an old, compromised email address demonstrates that the customer had no control over the banks communications or internal processes, reinforcing that Chase not the customer is responsible for these failures. This sequence of events illustrates a systemic failure in Chases compliance, data protection, and customer communication practices, all of which place consumers at risk and violate federal privacy, banking, and consumer protection laws.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-10-17T07:31:46.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Other banking product or service","zip_code":"06614","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"16668094","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","date_received":"2025-10-17T07:09:42.000Z","state":"CT","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Problem accessing account"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This sequence of events illustrates a systemic failure in Chases compliance, data protection, and customer <em>communication</em> practices, all of which place <em>consumers</em> at <em>risk</em> and violate federal privacy, banking, and <em>consumer</em> protection laws."]},"sort":[11.665855,"16668094"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"15647646","_score":11.587565,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Hello, I didn't see the right options to choose from but I am glad it got me here. I'm a Surviving Victim of decades of XXXX. Now a certified Advocate, do consulting for the DOJ on Victim Services. To improve the odds of success for the many who will unfortunately follow. I recently learned of the law helping us clear up our Credit Report. I am INCREDIBLY GRATEFUL for this. Having once owned a XXXX XXXX XXXX, multiple homes, a family and a future full of hope. XXXX  stole EVERYTHING to survive. Becoming homeless, losing Credit put me in further abuse and danger, trying to outrun my XXXX. Even with the assistance of the FBI, DOJ, there weren't programs that assisted financially. Credit history was destroyed when the FBI notified it was time to relocate, suddenly, when another location was compromised. I became XXXX from self defense, survival. XXXX administration removed jobs of my decades long supports.Further destroying hope, identity, safety. Having now a XXXX  XXXX XXXX injury from the years of strangulation and violent abuse, it has taken my ability to speak without XXXX XXXX. I began the online process of requiring Credit report corrections. My complaint here, is about the need for Credit reporting agencies to provide ACCESSIBLE methods of communication to complete the task. Specifically for Experian to allow for their website to create alternative methods for allowing Consumers to VERIFY identity to access their report. Experian blocks Consumers from logging in or receiving their Free Annual Credit Report, leading you to purchase 'access ', via purchasing a subscription, to gain access. That subscription further exploits by your having to agree to 'share ' your information with anyone who 'claims ' to have a business. Selling your life to profit. Most XXXX  Rings, Trans National ones like mine, have greater technology than our GOVERNMENT. They exploit the IGNORANCE and GREED of the 3 companies that hold everyone 's past activities, phone numbers, email addresses, associate, employers and LOCATIONS. By having business fronts ; they REMAIN IN CONTROL. Today I was sent REPEATEDLY to sign in attempts, failed log ins; denied access from Experian. This has happened every time, over the years that I have tried to access my Report. There's no questions asked to help verify your identity, unlike the other two agencies. Equifax has a great model for initial access to begin the dispute process. It doesn't require the Consumer go in circles for HOURS and allows uploading of what information is required to comply with the LAW. The amount of RISK Victims are being put in being forced to disclose life threatening information online, in email accounts, via technology that is shared beyond your control, with every website you visit is dangerous. Not to mention the risks of hacking. It is my hope here, to speak TRUTH to POWER. To let you know how IMPORTANT it is for Credit Reporting Agencies to not only comply with the law but to do so with systems that facilitate its implementation. Having atleast 3 years to comply, and the resources to, one would think they would have websites that alow the VOICELESS to access vital services. To be able to answer SECURITY questions like the other 2 do ; to simply LOG IN and begin the retraumatizing process of looking back, to go forward. There's much FEAR of how our information will be handled. No guarantee of CONFIDENTIALITY, nor disclosure of how the information we provide will be stored, used in the future. Worse yet, no disclosure of what level of experience in this area, if any, that the recipient of our 'proof ' will have. If any NON DISCLOSURE policies are in place. I am currently in need of safe housing, near medical facilities and CREDIT is REQUIRED to secure it. Along with needing any amount of CREDIT CARD opportunities to pay for surgical procedures and relocation. I have NEVER defrauded my creditors by non payment. I have SURVIVED on less than {$1000.00} a month for decades by the grace of God alone. My hope is this deeply personal writing will encourage you in your enforcement efforts and shed light on the need for correction to Experian for their violation of my rights to fairly and TIMELY access my Report, file disputes, with my speech XXXX. I'm XXXX from the TRAUMA, literally, unable to get rehabilitation, procedures from being delayed, blocked by the 3 most POWERFULL agencies in the world. Experian is specifically keeping me from moving to get XXXX, because of their denial of access, failure to provide services that work. Aka LOG IN to facilitate fair and accurate CREDIT, as required by LAW. \nThere is MUCH to be done in the RESTORATION of HUMANITY to Victims of Crime. I pray my efforts here to speak ; bring about AWARENESS and CHANGE. God bless you ALL for the part you play in this endless endeavor.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-09-01T19:06:35.000Z","issue":"Unable to get your credit report or credit score","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"59601","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"15647646","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-09-01T17:46:17.000Z","state":"MT","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Other problem getting your report or credit score"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["My complaint here, is about the need for Credit reporting agencies to provide ACCESSIBLE methods of <em>communication</em> to complete the task. Specifically for Experian to allow for their website to create alternative methods for allowing <em>Consumers</em> to VERIFY identity to access their report. Experian blocks <em>Consumers</em> from logging in or receiving their Free Annual Credit Report, leading you to purchase 'access ', via purchasing a subscription, to gain access."],"product":["Credit reporting or other personal <em>consumer</em> reports"],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the <em>consumer</em> and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response"]},"sort":[11.587565,"15647646"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7490965","_score":11.314926,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"PART ( 2 ) adding on from part 1 [ DISCOVER ] *******Another critical provision of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), specifically 15 U.S. Code 1692c ( b ) - Communication with third parties. This section is of great significance, and I believe its crucial that Discover understands its implications. 15 U.S. Code 1692c ( b ) - Communication with third parties : The FDCPA explicitly states that, without the prior consent of the consumer given directly to the debt collector or the express permission of a court of competent jurisdiction, a debt collector, including Discover, may not communicate with any person other than the consumer, their attorney, a consumer reporting agency if otherwise permitted by law, the creditor, the attorney of the creditor, or the attorney of the debt collector. While I represent myself in this matter, it is essential that Discover fully comprehends the scope of this provision. Any communication with third parties not covered by the exceptions outlined in the FDCPA constitutes a violation of my rights as a consumer. I urge Discover to promptly review its practices and ensure strict compliance with 15 U.S. Code 1692c ( b ). Violations of this provision can have severe legal consequences, and I am committed to protecting my rights as a consumer. I have identified numerous violations of 15 U.S. Code 1692d, which explicitly forbids harassment or abuse in the context of debt Consumers : ** Your actions, including disclosing my personal information in the context of debt collection, resemble the prohibited publication of a list of consumers who refuse to pay debts, as outlined in 1692d ( 3 ). **Advertisement for Sale of Debt : ** The manner in which you've pursued payment, including threats and coercion, could be construed as an attempt to advertise the sale of the debt, contravening 1692d ( 4 ). I have thoroughly reviewed your debt collection practices, and it has come to my attention that there are numerous violations concerning the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ( TCPA ), as stipulated in 47 U.S.C. 227. The TCPA establishes strict regulations regarding telemarketing calls, auto-dialing systems, and unsolicited facsimile advertisements, among other things. Each violation of the TCPA can result in penalties of up to {$1500.00} per violation. Upon reviewing your actions, it has become evident that you have consistently engaged in practices that run afoul of the TCPA. 2. Failure to Obtain Consent : The TCPA mandates that prior express consent must be obtained before initiating any telemarketing calls or sending unsolicited facsimile advertisements. It appears that you have not consistently obtained this required consent. 3.Lack of Opt-Out Mechanisms : The TCPA also requires that telemarketing calls provide recipients with an easy means to opt out of future communications. It is evident that your communications have not consistently included these opt-out mechanisms. 4. Calling Without Prior Consent : Your actions show that you have made numerous calls without the requisite prior consent, constituting violations of the XXXX. Given the severity of TCPA violations and the potential penalties of up to {$1500.00} per violation, it is crucial that you rectify these violations immediately. I strongly urge you to cease these practices and take corrective action promptly to avoid further consequences. I am acutely aware of the numerous violations concerning 15 U.S. Code 1666a - Billing Error Resolution that Discover has committed against me through their correspondence and billing practices. The law is explicit about the obligations of creditors, especially when an obligor has reported a billing error. These violations include : 1. Failure to Acknowledge Billing Errors Promptly : Discover has consistently failed to acknowledge billing errors promptly upon receipt of written notice. The law stipulates that creditors should acknowledge such notices within thirty days.\n\n2. Failure to Make Appropriate Corrections : Instead of making appropriate corrections in response to reported billing errors, Discover has often chosen to continue collection activities without the requisite corrections or clarification. The law mandates that creditors must correct billing errors within XXXX complete billing cycles or no later than XXXX XXXX. Lack of Transparency in Providing Documentation : When a billing error is reported, Discover has failed to provide adequate explanations, clarifications, or copies of documentary evidence as required by law. This lack of transparency infringes upon my rights as a consumer. 4. Continued Collection Efforts Despite Billing Errors : Discovers continued collection efforts following reported billing errors, without adhering to the required procedures for resolution, constitute a significant violation of this law. 5. Restricting or Closing Accounts Prematurely : The law prohibits creditors from restricting or closing accounts solely due to an obligors failure to pay the amount indicated to be in error. However, Discover has not consistently followed this mandate. 6. Failure to Forfeit Rights After Noncompliance : Discover has failed to forfeit its right to collect the amount indicated by the obligor under paragraph ( 2 ) of subsection ( a ) when it does not comply with the laws requirements. Under the law, creditors may forfeit this right, and any finance charges thereon, except that the amount required to be forfeited may not exceed {$50.00}. It has come to my attention that Discover you have acted in a manner that violates the FDCPA. Specifically, these violations relate to 15 U.S. Code 1692b ( 5 ) and 15 U.S. Code 1692e ( 11 ) of the FDCPA. 15 U.S. Code 1692b ( 5 ) - Acquisition of Location Information : I have reason to believe that Discover has communicated with parties not expressly permitted under this section of the FDCPA. Such actions raise concerns about compliance with federal law and the safeguarding of my rights as a consumer. It is imperative that communications pertaining to debt collection strictly adhere to the statutory guidelines set forth in the FDCPA.\n\n15 U.S. Code 1692e ( 11 ) - False or Misleading Representations : There is also evidence that Discover has engaged in communications that are perceived to me as misrepresentations, particularly implying that certain communications were from an attorney, which may not have been the case. The FDCPA explicitly prohibits such false representations. I draw your attention to a matter of potential concern regarding the use of your corporate logo on certain correspondence sent to me, which may be a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ). In the recent correspondence received from Discover Financial Services, I have noted the prominent display of your corporate logo. While I understand the importance of branding and corporate identity, it has come to my attention that such usage on correspondence related to debt collection may contravene the provisions of the FDCPA, specifically 15 U.S. Code 1692e ( 5 ). 15 U.S. Code 1692e ( 5 ) - Use of Symbols or Language Indicating Debt Collection : This section of the FDCPA explicitly prohibits the use of any language or symbol on envelopes or within the contents of communication that indicates the debt collector is in the debt collection business or that the communication relates to the collection of a debt. The intent of this provision is to ensure that consumers are not misled or intimidated by the appearance of debt-related correspondence. The prominent use of your corporate logo on correspondence, which is unmistakably linked to the collection of a debt, raises many violation concerns about compliance with this provision of the FDCPA. It is imperative that debt collection communications adhere to the spirit and letter of the law to safeguard the rights and interests of consumers.I emphasize that my intention in bringing this matter to your attention is not merely to highlight a potential violation but also to ensure that debt collection practices are conducted ethically and in strict compliance with federal law. Attention, a matter that raises concerns regarding potential violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), specifically pertaining to 15 U.S. Code 1692e ( 11 ). 15 U.S. Code 1692e ( 11 ) - Failure to Disclose Debt Collection Status : This section of the FDCPA mandates that debt collectors must disclose, both in the initial written communication with the consumer and in the initial oral communication if the initial contact is oral, that they are attempting to collect a debt and that any information gathered during this process will be used for that purpose. Furthermore, it stipulates that in subsequent communications, it is essential to disclose that the communication is from a debt collector, except for formal pleadings made in connection with a legal action. I have received numerous communications from Discover Financial Services, which are considered attempts to collect a debt, yet these communications have consistently lacked the required disclosure that they are from a debt collector. This is a critical omission that could led to misunderstandings and violations of consumers rights under the FDCPA. It is imperative that debt collection communications fully comply with the provisions of the FDCPA to ensure transparency and protect the rights of consumers. Even if the absence of the specific phrase debt collector is argued, it remains essential that consumers are aware that the communication pertains to debt collection, as mandated by the law. This is a violation of 15 U.S. Code 1692e ( 11 ). All communications, both past and future, should unmistakably convey the nature of the communication as being related to debt collection. My intent in raising this concern is to ensure that Discover Financial Services adheres to the FDCPAs principles and provides consumers with clear, honest, and legally compliant debt collection communications. a Attention, another matter that raises concerns regarding potential violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), particularly related to 15 U.S. Code 1692f - Unfair Practices. 15 U.S. Code 1692f - Unfair Practices : This section of the FDCPA explicitly prohibits the use of unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt. It outlines several specific practices that are considered violations. Here are some of the key violations I have observed : ( XXXX ) Unauthorized Collection Amounts : I have received communications from Discover Financial Services that include claims for amounts beyond the principal debt. These additional amounts, including interest, fees, charges, or expenses, were not authorized legally. It is in violation of the FDCPA. ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : Discover Financial Services has allegedly accepted checks and other payment instruments that were postdated by more than five days. However, I was not provided with written notification of your intent to deposit these instruments as required by law. This lack of notification is seen as a violation of 15 U.S. Code 1692f ( 2 ). In your communications, Use of Language or Symbols on Envelopes : Discover Financial Services has used language or symbols on envelopes when communicating with me that do not comply with the FDCPAs guidelines. Specifically, using anything other than your address on envelopes could be considered a violation of 15 U.S. Code 1692f ( 8 ). It is essential to reiterate that adherence to the FDCPA is paramount in ensuring fair and ethical debt collection practices that protect consumers rights and interests. I am aware that under the FDCPA, each violation may incur a penalty of up to {$1000.00}. However, my primary objective is to foster compliance and ethical conduct, rather than seeking penalties. I encourage Discover Financial Services to rectify these potential violations and commit to transparent, lawful debt collection practices. 15 U.S. Code 1692g - Validation of Debts : This section of the FDCPA mandates certain actions and disclosures by debt collectors to ensure transparency and fairness in the debt collection process. It is imperative for Discover Financial Services to be in full compliance with these requirements.\n\nHere are some of the key violations I have observed : ( a ) Notice of Debt ; Contents : Discover Financial Services failed to provide the required written notice to me within five days after the initial communication in connection with the collection of the debt. The notice must include specific information such as the amount of the debt, the name of the creditor, and a statement of my rights to dispute the debt. This omission may constitute a violation of 15 U.S. Code 1692g ( a ). ( b ) Disputed Debts : Upon my written request within the thirty-day period as described in subsection ( a ), Discover Financial Services was obligated to cease collection activities related to the debt until verification of the debt or other requested information was provided. Despite my written request, collection activities persisted, which is a violation of 15 U.S. Code 1692g ( b ). Regarding the XXXX of XXXX in your correspondence. I want to bring to your attention a matter that directly affects my consumer rights. Your choice of using the word agreement, especially when communicating with me about debt collection, is a direct violation of my rights and is highly deceptive. Deceptive Terminology : Its essential to understand that using the term agreement can be misleading and deceptive, particularly when it comes to financial matters like debt collection. This is not merely an issue of semantics ; it goes to the heart of transparency and fairness in consumer dealings. Validation of Debt and Cease and Desist : Ive also previously requested validation of debt and issued a cease and desist notice. Its crucial to reiterate that upon receiving this document, all collection activities, including reporting to consumer agencies, must halt. Any continuation of these activities constitute violations of consumer protection laws. Compliance is not a choice. Regarding Admission of Liability : I want to underscore a critical point concerning the admission of liability. As per the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), specifically 15 U.S. Code 1692g ( c ), the failure of a consumer to dispute the validity of a debt should not, under any circumstances, be construed by any court as an admission of liability by the consumer. Illegality of Default Judgments : Its imperative to understand that any attempt to obtain a default judgment under these circumstances is not only against the law but also in direct violation of my consumer rights. A default judgment in debt collection cases should not occur when a consumer has requested debt validation or issued a cease and desist notice. These legal safeguards are in place precisely to protect consumers from such practices. Compliance is Mandatory : I insist on full compliance with this aspect of consumer protection law. Failure to adhere to this principle constitutes a violation of the law and my rights. Immediate Action Required : Any attempt to obtain a default judgment in contravention of the law will be met with appropriate legal action to safeguard my rights. 15 U.S. Code 1692i - Legal actions by debt collectors ( a ) Venue Any debt collector who brings any legal action on a debt against any consumer shall 1. In the case of an action to enforce an interest in real property securing the consumers obligation, bring such action only in a judicial district or similar legal entity in which such real property is located ; or 2. In the case of an action not described in paragraph ( 1 ), bring such action only in the judicial district or similar legal entity ( A ) In which such consumer signed the contract sued upon ; or ( B ) In which such consumer resides at the commencement of the action.\n\n( If debt collectors choose to bring legal action, by law, they would have to bring it to my jurisdiction. ) ( b ) Authorization of actions Nothing in this subchapter shall be construed to authorize the bringing of legal actions by debt collectors. Discover, its crucial to emphasize that, as per 15 U.S. Code 1692i, legal actions on debts should be brought in specific jurisdictions. Debt collectors should not be initiating legal actions themselves. Congress has explicitly warned against the creation of documents that might mislead consumers into believing that a party other than the creditor is involved in debt collection. Its vital to ensure that such deceptive practices are avoided.\n\nI want to remind you of the violations identified in 15 U.S. Code 1692j : ( a ) It is unlawful to design, compile, and furnish any form knowing that such form would be used to create the false belief in a consumer that a person other than the creditor of such consumer is participating in the collection of or in an attempt to collect a debt such consumer allegedly owes such creditor, when in fact such person is not so participating. ( b ) Any person who violates this section shall be liable to the same extent and in the same manner as a debt collector is liable under section 1692k of this title for failure to comply with a provision of this subchapter. Please ensure that your correspondence aligns with these legal requirements. Deceptive forms can have serious consequences, and its in both parties interest to maintain transparency. \nBring your attention to the legal framework surrounding civil liability as specified in 15 U.S. Code 1692k. Its essential to understand the potential consequences of failing to comply with the provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ). This code outlines the following aspects of civil liability : Amount of Damages ( 1692k ( a ) ) : Any debt collector who fails to comply with the FDCPA may be liable to the affected person for : 1.Actual damages incurred due to the failure. 2.Additional damages as determined by the court, not exceeding {$1000.00} for individual actions or as applicable in class actions. 3.Costs of the legal action. 4. Reasonable attorneys fees. Factors Considered by Court ( 1692k ( b ) ) : The court considers various factors when determining the amount of liability, including the frequency and persistence of noncompliance, the nature of noncompliance, and whether it was intentional. Intent ( XXXX ( c ) ) : Debt collectors may not be held liable if they can demonstrate that the violation was not intentional and resulted from a bona fide error, provided they maintain procedures reasonably adapted to avoid such errors. Jurisdiction ( XXXX ( d ) ) : Actions to enforce liability can be brought in any appropriate United States district court without regard to the amount in controversy or in any other court of competent jurisdiction, within one year from the date of the violation. It is essential to comply with both the FDCPA and FTC guidelines, as they not only define ethical practices but also carry significant legal consequences for violations. Addressing a matter of utmost importance regarding documentation you have provided concerning the alleged debt associated with my account. As stipulated in Rule 1002 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, it is a fundamental requirement that an original writing, recording, or photograph is necessary to prove its content unless specified otherwise by these rules or a federal statute. This rule, designed to uphold the integrity of evidence, plays a pivotal role in ensuring the accuracy and authenticity of documents used in legal matters. Regrettably, Discovers failure to provide the original document in question pertaining to the alleged debt represents a major violation of Rule 1002 and calls into question the legitimacy of the debt and the accuracy of the information being pursued. By not adhering to this critical rule, Discover has jeopardized the credibility of its collection efforts and may have placed itself in a precarious legal position. The absence of the original document raises significant doubts regarding the validity of the debt you are attempting to collect. I must insist that Discover should have taken immediate corrective action by providing the original document as required by Rule 1002. Addressing this major violation is essential not only for compliance with legal standards but also for restoring trust and transparency in your future dealings. Failure to rectify this situation promptly will result legal actions to safeguard my rights and interests. Please consider this matter seriously, as it pertains to a major violation with potential legal consequences.- **Subject : Assumption of Risk and Your Debt Collection Practices** A matter of utmost importance concerning your debt collection practices, particularly in light of the legal doctrines of \" assumption of risk. \" Assumption of risk '' is a legal concept with deep-rooted principles, indicating that individuals who knowingly and voluntarily accept the risks of certain actions or decisions can not subsequently seek recourse for any resulting consequences. This doctrine highlights personal responsibility for one 's choices. In the context of debt collection, this concept takes on a significant meaning. By purchasing and attempting to collect debts, you willingly assume the inherent risks associated with these financial transactions. It's essential to recognize that these debts may be inherently problematic or noncollectable, and your decision to engage in this business carries with it certain responsibilities. While \" assumption of risk '' was traditionally an affirmative defense available to defendants in legal matters, it has evolved, particularly in jurisdictions like California, to include scenarios where the defendant does not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff. This means that, as a debt collector, you must consider the inherent risks in your chosen field of business.Express assumption of risk, often formalized through signed waivers, can limit your liability to the terms of such waivers, provided they are not against public policy. In essence, it becomes a contractual matter. Implied assumption of risk, on the other hand, prevents a party from recovering when they voluntarily accept the risks associated with a certain activity, and this is where your responsibilities come into play. Debt collection inherently carries risks, such as the possibility of dealing with uncollectible debts, challenging debtors, or navigating complex regulations. It's crucial to understand that you, as a debt collector, have knowledge and appreciation of these risks. In doing so, you assume the responsibility for the outcomes of your collection efforts. Whether debts are collectible or not, it is your obligation to act in compliance with the law and to treat debtors fairly and ethically. While the legal landscape surrounding \" assumption of risk '' may have evolved, your responsibilities as a debt collector have not changed. You must uphold ethical standards, adhere to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), and act within the boundaries of the law. Failure to do so could expose you to significant legal consequences, including potential violations of the FDCPA, which carries its penalties and liabilities. Attention to a critical legal statute, 18 U.S. Code 1341, which pertains to Frauds and Swindles. This statute outlines severe penalties for individuals or entities that engage in schemes to defraud, obtain money or property through false pretenses, or employ fraudulent representations or promises. Specifically, the statute states : Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promisesplaces in any post office or authorized depository for mail matter, any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by the Postal Serviceshall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. The implications of this statute are profound and far-reaching, and it underscores the importance of conducting business activities with the utmost integrity and transparency. Any actions that can be construed as fraudulent or deceptive can result in severe legal consequences, including significant fines and imprisonment. In the context of your debt collection practices, it is imperative to adhere to the highest ethical and legal standards. Deceptive practices, false representations, or any actions that may be interpreted as fraudulent must be avoided at all costs.\n\nMoreover, I would like to emphasize that this statute carries even more severe penalties if the violation relates to a presidentially declared major disaster or emergency, or if it affects a financial institution. In such cases, the potential fines and imprisonment terms can be exceptionally high. The U.S. Code, specifically 18 U.S. Code 1028A, addresses the grave offense of Aggravated Identity Theft. This law aims to protect individuals from the malicious use of their personal information and identity for fraudulent purposes. It is a matter of utmost significance, as identity theft can lead to severe financial and emotional distress for the victims involved.I have reason to believe that my personal information has been mishandled, leading to many concerns about my privacy and the security of my identity. I take these matters very seriously. My primary objective is to ensure that my personal information remains secure, and Ive also noted violations of 18 U.S. Code 1028A. I believe it is essential to discuss these issues in detail to ensure a full understanding of the situation. As a responsible consumer, I have always upheld the importance of maintaining a clean and accurate credit history. However, recent events have led me to question the practices employed by Discover in managing my credit information, specifically in connection with Unwritten Permissible Purpose. The Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) outlines specific guidelines and regulations governing how consumer credit information is collected, reported, and used by creditors, including Discover. One crucial aspect of the FCRA is the requirement for creditors to have a permissible purpose to access a consumers credit report. It has come to my attention that Discover may have been engaged in a practice known as Unwritten Permissible Purpose. This practice involves accessing a consumers credit report without a clearly defined or legitimate reason, which raises significant concerns about the privacy and security of my personal information. I firmly believe that consumers have the right to protect their sensitive financial information from unwarranted intrusion. As a diligent and responsible consumer, I have taken every precaution to safeguard my credit history, and it is disconcerting to encounter practices that appear to circumvent the FCRAs safeguards. Furthermore, it has come to my attention that Discover conducted a soft pull on my credit account when I initiated the process of filing claims. This action raises additional concerns about the privacy and security of my financial information, as it was performed outside the context of permissible purposes under the FCRA. Discovers actions in this regard may potentially violate the FCRA, and it is essential to address this issue comprehensively. I have serious reservations about the unauthorized access to my credit information and the implications it may have on my financial privacy. specifically concerning tax reporting and potential violations that have come to my attention. Recent events have led me to question the practices employed by Discover in managing my credit information, particularly regarding the reporting of charged-off debts and tax-related matters. A charged-off debt typically signifies that a creditor has deemed the debt as uncollectible and, in most cases, a tax break for the loss. It is essential for consumers to be aware of the financial implications of a charged-off debt, including the obligation to report it as gross income when necessary. When a debt is charged off, consumers have the right to request a Form 1099-C, known as the Cancellation of Debt form, from the creditor. This form is vital for tax purposes, as it ensures that any canceled debt is properly reported as income to the IRS. Filing the 1099-C is not only a legal obligation but also a means for consumers to maintain accurate records of their financial transactions. The filing of the 1099-C fundamentally changes the status of the debt from a bad debt to income. It demonstrates that the consumer has fulfilled their obligation by reporting the canceled debt as income during tax filings. This critical step ensures transparency and compliance with tax regulations. It has come to my attention that Discover may not be providing consumers with the necessary Form 1099-C upon the charge-off of a debt. This practice raises serious concerns about compliance with tax reporting regulations and may potentially constitute tax fraud. As a consumer, I am deeply troubled by the failure to provide essential tax documentation. If Discover fails to provide consumers with their Form 1099-C when required, it jeopardizes not only the consumers financial records but also the creditors reporting obligations to the IRS. This situation is further exacerbated when a charged-off debt is inaccurately reported as a collection item, creating an erroneous representation of the consumers credit status. I want to emphasize the significance of this issue and the potential consequences for both consumers and creditors. When debts are reported as charged off, Discover should ensure that the associated Form 1099-C is provided promptly. Failure to do so could lead to tax-related problems for consumers and potential regulatory issues for Discover. Additionally, I urge Discover to promptly correct the inaccurate reporting of charged-off debts as collectors items, as this misrepresentation can adversely affect a consumers creditworthiness and create unnecessary challenges. I believe in the importance of transparency, accuracy, and compliance in financial matters, this matter is of significant importance to me, as it pertains to both my financial well-being and my confidence. I insist that Discover immediately removes the alleged debt from my credit report and ceases any further reporting related to this matter on my consumer report.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-09-02T09:57:30.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"32566","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7490965","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"DISCOVER BANK","date_received":"2023-09-02T09:24:51.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Implied assumption of <em>risk</em>, on the other hand, prevents a party from recovering when they voluntarily accept the <em>risks</em> associated with a certain <em>activity</em>, and this is where your responsibilities come into play. Debt collection inherently carries <em>risks</em>, such as the possibility of dealing with uncollectible debts, challenging debtors, or navigating complex regulations. It's crucial to understand that you, as a debt collector, have knowledge and appreciation of these <em>risks</em>."],"product":["Credit reporting or other personal <em>consumer</em> reports"]},"sort":[11.314926,"7490965"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17059986","_score":9.639146,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"Company\n\ninvolved : Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation ( NMAC ).\n\nXX/XX/XXXXXXXX  : XXXX  XXXX XXXX ( lease ) repossessed from the XXXX VA XXXX XXXX in XXXX, NY. \n\nXX/XX/XXXXXXXX  ( FDCPA, Section 807 False or Misleading Representations ) : Date of the first successful telephone communication with NMAC ( representative named XXXX XXXX ). This representative stated that the lessee would be charged additional fees if the the \" keys '' for the repossessed vehicle were NOT given to the towing company XXXX XXXX , suggesting these were lawful charges. They are not. \n\nXX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX ( FDCPA [ CFPA ] Section 807 False or Misleading Representations ( 2 ) ( B ), ( 10 ), and ( 14 ) : Coercion to pay via money transfer service that was all the while not an option to the lessee, and then, since not discovered until 17 days after the date of repossession, delayed successful payment to reinstate the lease such that additional charges have been accrued. During MULTIPLE communications with NMAC representatives ( XXXX [ on XXXX, telephone ], via email from NMAC on XXXX - initiated by XXXX ; XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX ; and XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX ) payment ( s ) required to reinstate the lease in question were strongly recommended to be made via XXXX. Justification for which explained as this method allowing for significantly less time from confirmed processing of repayment and release of the repossessed vehicle. The lessee attempted to pay the owed amount of approximately {$3200.00} on XX/XX/XXXX via XXXX, as was recommended. Multiple attempts to make this payment, including in various denominations, were unsuccessful. After working overnight as a resident physician at the XXXX VA, and waiting on hold for nearly 3 hours on XX/XX/XXXX to speak with an NMAC representative regarding this difficulty processing the due payment via XXXX, only then it was discovered that in fact, all the while, the lessee was never authorized to make a payment via XXXX. In other words, the lessee was encouraged and recommended ( potentially coerced ) to repay via XXXX although all the while they were never authorized to do so. Therefore, the lessee was repeatedly provided with false and misleading information. \n\nXXXX day ( XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  ) - NYS Personal Property Law Sections XXXX & XXXX, Uniform Commercial Code ( UCC ) Article IX, and the FDCPA section 808 Unfair practices. Lenders are to allow the retrieval of personal property from a repossessed vehicle. As of today, XX/XX/XXXX, there has NOT been any communication regarding how to retrieve personal belongings ; meanwhile there HAS been threatening to sell the vehicle before having a chance to claim such personal property. NMAC has failed to provide notice ( via telephone, email, or mail ) on how to collect personal property from the repossessed vehicle. This is the case despite MULTIPLE formal requests for this notice by the lessee. This was first requested during the initial communication with NMAC representative, XXXX, via telephone on XX/XX/XXXX ; a second time during telephone communication on XX/XX/XXXX representative XXXX ; a third and fourth time in an email sent from the lessee to XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX ; and a fifth time during a telephone call with XXXX XXXX, a Certificate of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Specialist with XXXX XXXX XXXX, Conflict Resolution ; which took place on XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX XXXX ( duration XXXX minutes ). And, in fact, during this most immediately aforementioned phone call, XXXX XXXX shared that such a notice could NOT be provided. Note, XXXX XXXX initiated communication with the lessee via telephone that day for what was described as the purpose of checking-in on the post-repossession lease reinstatement process after having received the aforementioned email and attached letter. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX - present day ( XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  ) : On XX/XX/XXXX, sufficient repayment to reinstate the lease was processed through ( not XXXX ) Paymentus ( to NMAC ), a telephone-based platform option for payment submissions. Vehicle was, without notice to the lessee, transported to an auction house in XXXX, PA on XX/XX/XXXX. If the lessee was not mislead regarding viable payment options, payment would have been processed on XX/XX/XXXX, and therefore the vehicle would not have been transported to said auction house. NMAC representative XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  ( corroborated by Executive of Consumer Affairs for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  ) stated ( via telephone ) that the vehicle would be transported back to XXXX XXXX  in XXXX, NY ( free-of-charge ) as soon as possible. It is now 10 days later, and the vehicle has yet to be transported. All the while, ~ {$1500.00} in rental car charges have been accrued in order to transport the lessee to-and-from their place of work, and, of course, additional as-needed reasons to transport oneself. Telephone call with 'XXXX  XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX included XXXX ' verbalizing that compensation for such rental car costs were not able to be compensated for. \n\nAs of the date ( XXXX ) Section 809 Validation of Debts REQUESTS ( none of which have been met ) 1 ) Written terms explaining the expectations, responsibilities, and necessary actions for the lessee, NMAC, and the repossession facility ( i.e., towing and/or impound company/lot ) post-repayment for lease reinstatement. \n2 ) Written instructions for retrieving personal property from the repossession facility ( required according to NYS Personal Property Law 316 & 320 in conjunction with the UCC Article IX ; and FDCPA 808 see below ). \n3 ) Written explanation of the auction process. Although qualifying repayment should limit its utility, this is still required under the FDCPA.\n\n4 ) One or more reliable and accessible contacts if there are any issues with above.\n\n5 ) A written validation of debt letter, with description regarding a lessees right to dispute and the corresponding process if applicable ( in compliance with FDCPA 809 ).\n\n6 ) Written proof of what is allegedly an official NMAC policy that lessees with accounts marked as delinquent, post-repossession, are disqualified from making any payments to NMAC via the money transfer service XXXX. Included the date of installment of this policy. If the installment date follows the date of repossession of the leased vehicle addressed herein, provide written proof of additional NMAC policy ( if any ) which indicates that NMAC chooses to relieve itself of responsibility for informing lessees post-repossession of this policy change. \n\nAdditional context A pattern of repossession misconduct by NMAC may be ongoing, based on what is described above and given the publicly available CFPB action taken against NMAC for unlawful repossession practices, through the published administrated meeting in XXXX. For reference, the lessee has reviewed and remains aware of the ... repossession and servicing activities by [ NMAC ] and identified the violations [ of ] wrongfully repossessed vehicles despite having agreements with consumers to prevent repossession ; [ keeping of ] personal property that was located in consumers vehicles at the time of repossession and [ failure to ] return that personal property until consumers paid a fee for its storage ; and depriving consumers making auto-loan payments by phone of the ability to select a payment option with a significantly lower fee than the one they were charged. This remains noteworthy, as the misconduct described in those proceedings may suggest a sustained pattern given the many instances outlined herein. \n\nFinally, note, some of the personal property in the repossessed vehicle consists of personal identification badges which authorize access to protected sections of multiple hospitals in the XXXX, NY region and therefore, since clearly accessible to the towing company and others, a patient privacy breach is at-risk so long as the personal property is not made available for retrieval by the lessee.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-07T06:34:08.000Z","issue":"Written notification about debt","sub_product":"Auto debt","zip_code":"14534","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17059986","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE COMPANY LLC","date_received":"2025-11-07T05:22:46.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Didn't receive notice of right to dispute"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["For reference, the lessee has reviewed and remains aware of the ... repossession and servicing <em>activities</em> by [ NMAC ] and identified the violations [ of ] wrongfully repossessed vehicles despite having agreements with <em>consumers</em> to prevent repossession ; [ keeping of ] personal property that was located in <em>consumers</em> vehicles at the time of repossession and [ failure to ] return that personal property until <em>consumers</em> paid a fee for its storage ; and depriving <em>consumers</em> making auto-loan payments by"]},"sort":[9.639146,"17059986"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"15141234","_score":9.433086,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Dear Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, I am writing to file a formal complaint against various furnishers and credit reporting agencies for violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), and my rights as a consumer. I have attempted to resolve these issues directly, but the inaccuracies continue to appear on my credit reports, severely damaging my credit profile, financial opportunities, and personal well-being. \nXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  TX XXXX Issue : This address is being reported incorrectly and does not belong to me. Its presence on my credit file is misleading and could result in confusion or fraud. \nLaw : FCRA 609 and 611 grant me the right to accurate information and the ability to dispute errors. \nStory : I have never resided at this address. Its appearance on my profile could potentially expose me to liability or mistaken identity concerns, causing unnecessary hardship and risk of fraud. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, TX XXXX Issue : This address is foreign to my personal and financial records. \nLaw : FCRA Section 602 requires credit bureaus to maintain policies to ensure maximum possible accuracy. \nXXXX : This error led to a misdirected billing notice affecting my standing with my current landlord and complicating verification for employment screening. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX High Balance : {$9500.00} Opened : XX/XX/XXXX Issue : Charge Off reported in error, not informed of any prior delinquency as required by law. \nLaw : FDCPA Section 807 prohibits false representation, FCRA requires accuracy of account status. \nStory : I was not notified or given an opportunity to cure any default. Reporting this as a charge off without prior notification has unjustly impacted my credit rating, escalating my loan costs and causing financial hardship. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX * * XXXX XXXX : {$1000.00} Opened : XX/XX/XXXX Issue : Account is showing charge off status ; no validation or detailed itemization provided despite my repeated requests. \nLaw : FDCPA Section 809 and FCRA 611 require proper validation and correction of disputed items. \nStory : Repeated attempts to resolve this have been ignored, undermining my trust and causing distress about fraudulent or unauthorized transactions. \n\nXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX * * XXXX XXXX : {$2100.00} Opened : XX/XX/XXXX Issue : Shows charge off ; not my legitimate account. \nXXXX : FCRA 602, 609 Right to dispute ; reporting must be accurate. \nXXXX : This entry is unknown to me and was never authorized. Its presence has hindered my ability to obtain employment that requires background checks, creating real life setbacks. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX High Balance : {$510.00} Opened : XX/XX/XXXX Issue : Late payment marked without notifying me as the law requires. \nXXXX : FCRA, CFPB guidance Consumers must be enabled to correct or dispute records before negative reporting. \nStory : No bill or request for payment reached me. The negative mark resulted in declined applications for essential credit during an emergency. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX * * High Balance : {$6400.00} Opened : XX/XX/XXXX Issue : Late payment entry does not reflect any late statement on my end, never received notice. \nLaw : FCRA requires timely notice before adverse reports. \nStory : The late payment blemished my record right as I was securing a car loan, causing higher rates and suspicion about my financial reliability. \n\nXXXX XXXX * * High Balance : {$27000.00} Opened : XX/XX/XXXX Issue : Late payment reported during a period when natural disaster/medical emergency impeded my payment ability ; not taken into consideration. \nXXXX : CFPB encourages lenders to provide hardship accommodations ( CFPB XXXX XXXX ). \nStory : Despite providing documentation of unavoidable hardship, my request for relief went ignored, and now my credit report is unjustly penalized. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX * High Balance : {$8900.00} Opened : XX/XX/XXXX Issue : Charge off without proper notification ; validation not received ; disputed. \nXXXX : FDCPA, FCRA. \nStory : My requests for verification have gone unanswered, raising suspicion whether this debt is truly mine or a case of identity theft or clerical error. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX * * High Balance : {$25000.00} Opened : XX/XX/XXXX Issue : Late payment status not justified or proved by records. \nLaw : FCRA 611. \nStory : I made all payments as per my records. Reporting this as late has penalized me for a mistake I did not make, hurting my financial standing during critical times. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX * * High Balance : {$1800.00} Opened : XX/XX/XXXX Issue : Charge off, entry disputed, no validation or communication regarding the original debt. \nLaw : FCRA requires accurate, validated data. \nStory : Without proof or communication, this charge off unwarrantedly drags down my score, adding to financial and emotional distress. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX * * * * High Balance : {$6700.00} Opened : XX/XX/XXXX Issue : Late payment marked erroneously, never given an account statement. \nLaw : FCRA, XXXX XXXX. \nStory : No statement, no reminder, no chance to correctyet my credit is penalized, affecting my employment opportunities. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX * * * High Balance : {$550.00} Opened : XX/XX/XXXX Issue : Same debt as above double-reported, misleading lenders and partners. \nLaw : FCRA No duplicate negative reporting. \nStory : This redundancy magnifies my perceived risk, leading to unwarranted rejections and lost opportunities. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX * * * High Balance : {$730.00} Opened : XX/XX/XXXX Issue : Collection showing, disputed, never received prior communication or an itemized statement. \nLaw : FDCPA 809. \nStory : The lack of transparency makes me question if this is a real debt or an erroreither way, it severely hurts my creditworthiness. \n\nXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX * * High Balance : {$1400.00} Opened : XX/XX/XXXX Issue : Collection, never had dealings with this agency, never got notified. \nLaw : FDCPA requires XXXX to send written notice within XXXX days. \nStory : This unknown entry alarms me as a sign of possible identity fraud or misapplied collections protocol. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Issue : Inquiry without my authorization, affecting my score. \nXXXX : FCRA prohibits unauthorized hard inquiries. \nStory : I did not apply for any product requiring this inquiry, yet it has negatively impacted my credit. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Issue : Inquiry reported ; no application from me. \nLaw : FCRA, XXXX XXXX. \nStory : Erroneous or unauthorized inquiries, like this, should not penalize my score or alert potential lenders to false activity. \n\nXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Issue : Inquiry ; not solicited, reduces eligibility for new accounts. \nLaw : FCRA. \nStory : Repeated unauthorized inquiries chip away at my score, creating obstacles out of nothing. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Issue : XXXX and unwanted, reduces score without cause. \nLaw : FCRA 604. \nStory : My financial plans have been directly undermined by unauthorized activity on my file. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XX/XX/XXXX Issue : Inquiry without application or consent. \nXXXX : FCRA, FDCPA. \nStory : My diligent efforts at responsible borrowing are being sabotaged by unauthorized party actions jeopardizing my reputation. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX Issue : Unsolicited inquiry damaging my file. \nLaw : FCRA, XXXX XXXX. \nXXXX : Did not approach or authorize any transactionharmful and unfair. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX Issue : XXXX ; disputed and not connected to my request or consent. \nLaw : FCRA 604. \nStory : Anxiety and unfair loss of financial access result from these unchecked inquiries. \n\nXXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Issue : XXXX, no related activity from my side. \nLaw : FCRA, XXXX XXXX. \nXXXX : The compounding effect of these baseless inquiries severely limits my financial growth. \n\nXXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Issue : InquiryI was not shopping for credit. \nLaw : FCRA. \nStory : My ability to borrow responsibly is unfairly hindered after false inquiry logs. \n\nXXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Issue : XXXX not requested by me, unnecessary credit check. \nLaw : FCRA. \nStory : My credit integrity is being repeatedly sabotaged by actions beyond my knowledge or consent. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Issue : Yet another unauthorized inquiry, not triggered by me. \nLaw : FCRA, XXXX XXXX. \nStory : The ongoing and mounting acts of unauthorized inquiry paint a false picture, hampering my financial future. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Issue : Unrecognized inquiry lowering my XXXX XXXX. \nLaw : FCRA, XXXX XXXX. \nStory : Innocent mistakes or malicious actseither way, unauthorized inquiries punish the consumer, not the perpetrator. \n\nRELIEF REQUESTED : XXXX. XXXX investigation and removal of inaccurate addresses XXXX. Full deletion of inaccurate, duplicated, and unverifiable negative accounts XXXX. Permanent removal of unauthorized inquiries from my credit reports XXXX. Written confirmation of all corrective actions taken I respectfully urge the CFPB to hold the involved furnishers and credit bureaus accountable for these repeated violations and ensure that my consumer rights under the law are restored. \nThank you for your assistance","date_sent_to_company":"2025-08-08T01:22:44.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"77045","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"15141234","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-08-08T01:20:49.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Story : This redundancy magnifies my perceived <em>risk</em>, leading to unwarranted rejections and lost opportunities. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX * * * High Balance : {$730.00} Opened : XX/XX/XXXX Issue : Collection showing, disputed, never received prior <em>communication</em> or an itemized statement. \nLaw : FDCPA 809. \nStory : The lack of transparency makes me question if this is a real debt or an erroreither way, it severely hurts my creditworthiness."],"product":["Credit reporting or other personal <em>consumer</em> reports"],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the <em>consumer</em> and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response"]},"sort":[9.433086,"15141234"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"15141010","_score":9.220299,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Dear Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, I am writing to file a formal complaint against various furnishers and credit reporting agencies for violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), and my rights as a consumer. I have attempted to resolve these issues directly, but the inaccuracies continue to appear on my credit reports, severely damaging my credit profile, financial opportunities, and personal well-being. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, TX XXXX Issue : This address is being reported incorrectly and does not belong to me. Its presence on my credit file is misleading and could result in confusion or fraud. \nLaw : FCRA 609 and 611 grant me the right to accurate information and the ability to dispute errors. \nStory : I have never resided at this address. Its appearance on my profile could potentially expose me to liability or mistaken identity concerns, causing unnecessary hardship and risk of fraud. \n\nXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  High Balance : {$9500.00} Opened : XX/XX/XXXX Issue : Duplicate or erroneous charge off entry.\n\nLaw : FCRA forbids redundant, unverified, or erroneous entries.\n\nStory : This duplication has exaggerated my financial XXXX  profile, directly affecting my ability to obtain fair terms for credit and housing. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  High Balance : {$1000.00} Opened : XX/XX/XXXX Issue : Account is showing charge off status ; no validation or detailed itemization provided despite my repeated requests. \nLaw : FDCPA Section 809 and FCRA 611 require proper validation and correction of disputed items. \nStory : Repeated attempts to resolve this have been ignored, undermining my trust and causing XXXX  about fraudulent or unauthorized transactions. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX High Balance : {$510.00} Opened : XX/XX/XXXX Issue : Late payment marked without notifying me as the law requires. \nLaw : FCRA, CFPB guidance Consumers must be enabled to correct or dispute records before negative reporting.\n\nStory : No bill or request for payment reached me. The negative mark resulted in declined applications for essential credit during an emergency. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX High Balance : {$2100.00} Opened : XX/XX/XXXX Issue : Redundant charge off, potentially double-reporting the same debt. \nLaw : Reporting agencies must ensure no double jeopardy for single accounts ( FCRA 609 ).\n\nStory : This entry, identical to another, has unfairly caused my debt-to-income ratio to appear much worse, triggering multiple denial letters on housing. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX High Balance : {$6400.00} Opened : XX/XX/XXXX Issue : Late payment entry does not reflect any late statement on my end, never received notice. \nLaw : FCRA requires timely notice before adverse reports.\n\nStory : The late payment blemished my record right as I was securing a car loan, causing higher rates and suspicion about my financial reliability. \n\nXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX High Balance : {$27000.00} Opened : XX/XX/XXXX Issue : Late payment reported during a period when natural disaster/medical emergency impeded my payment ability ; not taken into consideration. \nLaw : CFPB encourages lenders to provide hardship accommodations ( CFPB Bulletin 2014-03 ).\n\nStory : Despite providing documentation of unavoidable hardship, my request for relief went ignored, and now my credit report is unjustly penalized. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX High Balance : {$8900.00} Opened : XX/XX/XXXX Issue : Charge off without proper notification ; validation not received ; disputed.\n\nLaw : FDCPA, FCRA.\n\nStory : My requests for verification have gone unanswered, raising suspicion whether this debt is truly mine or a case of identity theft or clerical error. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX High Balance : {$1800.00} Opened : XX/XX/XXXX Issue : Charge off, entry disputed, no validation or communication regarding the original debt. \nLaw : FCRA requires accurate, validated data. \nStory : Without proof or communication, this charge off unwarrantedly drags down my score, adding to financial and XXXX  XXXX. \n\nXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  High Balance : {$6700.00} Opened : XX/XX/XXXX Issue : Late payment marked erroneously, never given an account statement.\n\nLaw : FCRA, Reg V.\n\nStory : No statement, no reminder, no chance to correctyet my credit is penalized, affecting my employment opportunities. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX High Balance : {$910.00} Opened : XX/XX/XXXX Issue : XXXX showing without validation or original documentation. \nLaw : FDCPA requires validation ; FCRA enforces accuracy. \nStory : A collection surfaced seemingly out of nowhere, causing XXXX  and fear of mistaken collection activity targeting me. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  High Balance : {$550.00} Opened : XX/XX/XXXX Issue : Collection reporting with no disclosure ; incomplete debt information.\n\nLaw : FDCPA Section 809.\n\nStory : Never received a collection notice or right to disputethis feels like a violation of my basic consumer protections. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  High Balance : {$1100.00} Opened : XX/XX/XXXX Issue : XXXX posted without supporting documentation or original creditor details. \nLaw : FDCPA, FCRA.\n\nStory : The sudden appearance of this collection has cast doubt on all my recent credit applicationsharmful and unjustified. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX High Balance : {$730.00} Opened : XX/XX/XXXX Issue : Collection showing, disputed, never received prior communication or an itemized statement. \nLaw : FDCPA 809.\n\nStory : The lack of transparency makes me question if this is a real debt or an erroreither way, it severely hurts my creditworthiness. \n\nUnknown Account XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  High Balance : {$140.00} Opened : XX/XX/XXXX Issue : Unexplained collection, no communication, may not be my account.\n\nLaw : FDCPA, FCRA.\n\nStory : This unexplained addition raises questions about the security and accuracy of my data, making me wary of further identity theft attempts. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX Issue : No account sought, unauthorized inquiry present. \nLaw : FCRA 604.\n\nStory : Unwanted inquiries create a misleading profile, scaring off lenders for valid applications.\n\nRELIEF REQUESTED : 1. Immediate investigation and removal of inaccurate addresses 2. Full deletion of inaccurate, duplicated, and unverifiable negative accounts 3. Permanent removal of unauthorized inquiries from my credit reports 4. Written confirmation of all corrective actions taken I respectfully urge the CFPB to hold the involved furnishers and credit bureaus accountable for these repeated violations and ensure that my consumer rights under the law are restored.\n\nThank you for your assistance","date_sent_to_company":"2025-08-08T01:24:32.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"77045","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"15141010","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-08-08T01:22:35.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Story : A collection surfaced seemingly out of nowhere, causing XXXX  and fear of mistaken collection <em>activity</em> targeting me. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  High Balance : {$550.00} Opened : XX/XX/XXXX Issue : Collection reporting with no disclosure ; incomplete debt information.\n\nLaw : FDCPA Section 809.\n\nStory : Never received a collection notice or right to disputethis feels like a violation of my basic <em>consumer</em> protections."],"product":["Credit reporting or other personal <em>consumer</em> reports"]},"sort":[9.220299,"15141010"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"5661757","_score":7.556559,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"This complaint is a complaint in accordance with the Securities Exchange Commission ( SEC ), Federal Trade Commission and other Financial Service Industry and Regulations. \n\nWhen anyone is conducting any business in dealing with exchanging and transferring funds across United States Terrorities and Foregin Terrorities they are supposed to be licensed in currency trading and should be able to produce such license to anyone upon request at a moment notice. They too should have Errors and Ommission Insurance in place as well as other Property and Casualty Insurance such as Professional Liablity Insurance in place.\n\nIn nature to this detail complaint I am submitting before the Security Exchange Commission ( SEC ), Federal Trade Commission and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau I am submitting this complaint in good faith that everything in it and everything apart of it is legal, accurate, true and correct and should immeidate warrant an order filed and served upon Coinbase.com to produce their records requested and to order to Cease and Desist Operation until validation of paperwork, licenses and return of unauthorized funds are returned back to my XXXX XXXX  XXXX, XXXX. account which Coinbase.com pulled without my authorization or consent to withdraw after serveral notices were attempted to cease and cancel any tranaction that they were responsible and liable for generating after my attempt to notify Coinbase.com of illegal events and activities that were going on using their platform. \n\nIn nature to my complaint to Coinbase.com I too advised Coinbase.com to immediately contact the Federal Bureau of Investigation ( FBI ) at https : //complaint.ic3.gov/default.aspx #. If Coinbase.com failed to do so that should tell everyone that they did not want to and they fully was aware of the illegal event and activities. The date and time and the IP address that registered in the system does not lie now Coinbase.com must come forward and show up and show that both IP addresses in question are my IP addresses and must show that I never made any attempt to contact Coinbase.com or XXXX  XXXX XXXX, XXXX in nature to the fraudlent event or activities. \n\nI turned over to Coinbase.com the perso name that represented Coinbase.com and assisted me in setting up such Coinbase 's account. \n\nNow further read the detail Notice of Intent to file a law suit against Coinbase.com if this matter is not rectified and settled within the timeframe this complaint is filed before the government agencies listed in the complaint. \n\n_____________________________________________________ XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, IL XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Coinbase.com Attn : Legal Department XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, CA XXXX Re : Notice Intent to Sue Letter Dear Coinbase.com Owner : This notice is a written communication before the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Federal Trade Commission on the illegal events and activities that has been discussed and brought before everyone in regarding the fraudulent activities that has taken place over your site or server. \n\nI have written to you already on numerous times in regard to immediately returning my {$10000.00} that was sent to your site after my notification to you not to pull from my Bank Account with XXXX XXXX  XXXX, XXXX. after suspecting criminal activity. \n\nIt has now been noted and brought to your attention in all the right and proper ways and I too validated on the records in your statement that such transaction was unauthorized or not authorized. \n\nBy your record you have a suspicious IP address that you know that is not my IP address and at that moment you should have immediately shut down the account and any transfer activities as I timely notified you of this in a timely manner. \n\nWhile filing this Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Complaint. I have requested that you produce and provide the following since you mentioned subpoena or getting a subpoena to get you to return whatever paperwork, records or funds from this event or matter. I have requested from you to turn over all legit financial service records such as licenses to operate in any money service business as well as your errors and omission insurance records. I am also requesting your corporate attorneys name address and phone number so that legal paperwork can be served to such agent of record address since you wish and failed to honor your own disclosure statement or record for the definition of fraud is clearly evident here. \n\nFor your statement of the record does not match up with XXXX XXXX or XXXX XXXX your employees statements or records. For how such person can know so much about your business and for you to say on the record that I purchased some cryptocurrency when I have never purchased or invested in cryptocurrency. This along is FRAUD and should be immediately looked at and into by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Federal Trade Commission, and a Circuit Court for XXXX XXXX in the State of Illinois. \n\nI have too requested that you immediately notify the Federal Bureau of Investigation ( FBI ) and file a IC3 complaint by now you should have filed such complaint and too should have such paperwork under Title 18, of the United States Code, Section 1001. You too should surrender such paperwork and surrender all the paperwork that you should have brought under your response to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Complaint as well as the attached Certification of Record that were sent to you by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. \n\nI am open and willing to consent to a JURY TRIAL since you mention subpoena to get information that I should not need a subpoena at this moment until you openly agree to a JURY TRIAL. \n\nThis complaint is not the same as the complaint before, but it is a legit record showing my legal rights to attempt to reach you and to notify you through another government agency to attempt to get this matter resolved before having to take you into any court to enforce return of my funds in the amount of {$10000.00} that you are not entitled to. \n\nYou disclosure talks about money laundering which you and your business is assisting in money laundering for there is not evidence showing that your business is not set up and established to prevent money laundering for if such is not correct then you too should know to whom these funds were transferred from my account to whoever account and where such funds were transferred through and from your system, you will have the full name of the person, address, phone number, and email address, etc. just like you have my name on file and in your system. \n\nCoinbase came to the Consumer financial Protection Bureau with a scam response and did not provide anything from the PROPER RECORDS that I uploaded on Consumer Financial Protection Bureaus site. ( See complaint file that is not the same but if such is the same then where are the records that you should be producing with your answer or response? ) Coinbase have came here and made two key comments to justify the immediate return of my {$10000.00} back to my XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, XXXX. Account. \n\nI asked Coinbase.com to produce their legal counsel of records and physical address to be professionally and legally served. As of this date Coinbase.com has not produce or provided anything but a bogus statement to mislead others. \n\nIf I file a report or complaint of a Fraud or Scam, then the respondent should be responding back with certified proof evidence that such is not FRAUD or a Scam. \n\nCareful review the terms and definitions below on what is FRAUD and also understanding by the key definition below what is the definition of money laundering : wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain. \n\" he was convicted of fraud '' Similar : Fraudulence, sharp practice, cheating, swindling, trickery, artifice, deceit, deception, double-dealing, duplicity, treachery, chicanery, skulduggery, imposture, embezzlement, monkey business, funny business Crookedness, hanky-panky, shenanigans, flimflam, jiggery-pokery, monkeyshines, management, knavery, trick, cheat, hoax, subterfuge, stratagem, wile, ruse, swindle, racket, scam, con, con trick, rip-off, leg-pull, sting, gyp, kite, diddle, fiddle, swizzle, bunco, boondoggle, hustle, grift, rort a person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities. \n\" mediums exposed as tricksters and frauds '' Similar : Impostor, fake, sham, pretender, hoodwinker, masquerader, charlatan, quack, mountebank, swindler, fraudster, racketeer, cheat Money Laundering is as follows : XXXX the concealment of the origins of illegally obtained money, typically by means of transfers involving foreign banks or legitimate businesses. \n\" he was convicted of money laundering and tax evasion '' In accordance with the Federal Bureau of Investigation : The Money Laundering Control Act of 1986 ( Public Law 99-570 ) is a United States Act of Congress that made money laundering, a federal crime. It was passed in 1986. It consists of two sections, 18 U.S.C. 1956 and 18 U.S.C. 1957. It for the first time in the United States criminalized money laundering. Section 1956 prohibits individuals from engaging in a financial transaction with proceeds that were generated from certain specific crimes, known as \" specified unlawful activities '' ( SUAs ). Additionally, the law requires that an individual specifically intend in making the transaction to conceal the source, ownership or control of the funds. There is no minimum threshold of money, nor is there the requirement that the transaction succeed in actually disguising the money. Moreover, a \" financial transaction '' has been broadly defined, and need not involve a financial institution, or even a business. Merely passing money from one person to another, so long as it is done with the intent to disguise the source, ownership, location or control of the money, has been deemed a financial transaction under the law. Section 1957 prohibits spending in excess of {$10000.00} derived from an SUA, regardless of whether the individual wishes to disguise it. This carries a lesser penalty than money laundering, and unlike the money laundering statute, requires that the money pass through a financial institution. [ 1 ] [ 2 ] Now, I need a consent to a JURY TRIAL document turned over to me so that we can get this matter or issue before a JURY TRIAL for that {$10000.00} that you unauthorized pulled from my XXXX  XXXX XXXX, XXXX. is still my funds in which you have failed to honor the respect of the banking industry or financial service industry to return such funds back to the rightful owner which is me ( XXXX XXXX ). \nSincerely, XXXX XXXX Fraud Victim Enclosures : Records Certification Notice CC : Federal Trade Commission XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX # XXXX, XXXX, IL XXXX Consumer Financial Protection Bureau XXXX XXXX XXXX Washington, DC XXXX Securities Exchange Commission XXXX XXXX XXXX Address : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, IL XXXX Phone : ( XXXX ) XXXX _______________________________________________________ This is not a duplicate complaint but a complaint to validate our records of facts that this financial service merchant does not follow or abbey by his or her own business policies. \n\nWe need all the official records as noted in the complaint that is sent to the Merchant called Coinbase.com fully read the information below : If we suspect the transaction involves ( or has a high risk of involvement in ) money laundering, terrorist financing, fraud, or any other type of financial crime ; in response to a subpoena, court order, or other government order ; if we reasonably suspect that the transaction is erroneous ; or if Coinbase suspects the transaction relates to Prohibited Use or a Prohibited Business as set forth below. In such instances, Coinbase will reverse the transaction and we are under no obligation to allow you to reinstate a purchase or sale order at the same price or on the same terms as the canceled transaction. To Whom This May Concern : Coinbase has not produced anything to validate its statements or claims but wishes to continue to filibuster this public complaint before the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Coinbase still has not produced such a legal license or certification as I have a right to see and have for my records. Coinbase makes such claim that I purchase some cryptocurrencies produce the receipt of purchase where I made such purchase. Coinbase refused and danced around to the issues of the IP Address in question and in issues. Coinbase refused to submit any documentation of proof showing that such representative did not or does not work with Coinbase.com. If such a person does not work with Coinbase.com or has never been affiliated with Coinbase.com then this is an official and legal matter of FRAUD. When Coinbase.com has to come into a court of law to prove. If such is FRAUD then Coinbase.com is responsible for the funds that they had pulled from my checking account after telling them not to pull from my checking account. Coinbase should have a better system set up and established to prevent any unauthorized transaction from anyone 's account. Whatever method you have set in place you should know where the funds are going, and to which account such funds are going after having them fully verify themselves as a sender or a receiver. How can you have a business that is set up in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ) 's rules, regulations, policies, procedures, and applicable laws to prevent money laundering and you can explain to any law enforcement or any official or legal government agency where such funds are going and into who account such funds are going into. You are assisting in the illegal event and illegal activities because somewhere and somehow you received a payment in some form or another and I am not the person or party that you are going to think that I am just going to allow you to get away with this scam. This is a SCAM and Coinbase.com is a SCAM supporting business. When you noticed such an alert triggered Coinbase.com should have shut it down and locked the consumer account and pick up the phone and directly made such communication contact with the consumer. Coinbase.com needs to be shown to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation that such were performed. If Coinbase.com can not show measures or attempts to prevent FRAUD or illegal sign-in detection then Coinbase.com is fully liable for these funds that are mysteriously missing or transmitted out of this account without my knowledge, approval, or consent. It is just that simple. Now since Coinbase.com mentioned court and legal actions such as a subpoena. But still does not open and legally consent to a jury trial if legal court action is to result from this. I want paperwork officially and legally sign in advance that you are consenting to a JURY TRAIL to prove your case that this is not FRAUD. I need a physical address and not some po box for you should know that no legal service can not be perfected upon a po box . If you're required to be my physical address from your service, then I too should be entitled to get your physical address for proper service. We don't want any issues or hang up in not something being done in accordance with a Sheriff Department legal service when such paperwork served must be under a sworn affidavit by someone able to serve such legal documents. What you have done is not my issue or mistake it is your issue or mistake for I don't purchase cryptocurrency and I am not interested in purchasing such and never have been interested in purchasing such. So let 's please get that corrected for the records. Once you claim and said that I participated in cryptocurrency you made an untruthful statement which is FRAUD. You have the paperwork from the Federal Bureau of Investigation telling you exactly what to do and it is very strange that even to this date, you have not attempted to do anything. As well, as I have to file an IC3 Report then so should you for everything to equally match up in the Federal Bureau of Investigation 's database. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau should know that I am correct and XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. has proof that you carried out an unauthorized transaction and even it is printed in your communication of record that such as unauthorized but now you wish to try to claim that such was authorized and authorized by me which validate FRAUD. I encourage you to come clean and come correct for I have done everything that I was supposed to do from all legal aspects and to make people aware that this cryptocurrency claims, or business is an undercover scam and such should not exist or should have never been approved by whoever approved such. But you want to come into the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and make such a claim that I am a cryptocurrency consumer when I am not. In closing, we need official and legal records from you showing that such date and time when such business was established and the legal corporation paperwork outlining what this kind of business is supposed to do for the people for which you are doing business. There is paperwork that should be to support my request. I need everything legal, accurate, and correct for law purposes and court purposes for we don't need any further issues or delays. You too should have Errors and Omissions Insurance in your records and a policy that covers and protect such occurrences as this one. Please produce such a policy agency that covers such and the policy number for the record. When you have two parties submitting conflicting statements, you have FRAUD, and such should be immediately reported to your law enforcement agency when this is a result of CYBER CRIMES or FINANCIAL SERVICE CRIMES. Now if I can do my part then COINBASE.COM should be able to do their part. I rest here and continue to wait for PROPER RECORDS that you should be producing to cause you to handle any funds of mine and to send out any funds of mine under my legal authorization and consent. PLEASE IMMEDIATELY TURN OVER YOUR RECORDS OF CERTIFICATION FOR THE RECORDS. COINBASE.COM has not produced anything to support its statements. XXXX XXXX Fraud Victim Securities Exchange Commission ( SEC ) Regulation Best Interest. \nUnder basic contract law, fraud in the formation of a contract renders the contract voidable by the innocent party at any time. Following this contract law principle, a merchant, buyer, or seller could declare a policy null and void if the person generating the transaction such under the terms and condition of coinbase.com in which such person lied in the act of performance or performing such illegal event or activities in his or her application for the process of generating any investment tool or engine, no matter when the merchant, business or agent discovered the lie. \n\nIn this case before the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Federal Trade Commission, and the Financial Securities Exchange Commission where Coinbase.com should have proof of certification of operating a money trading business or platform as well as should have proof of certification of licenses in place and such should be ready and made available to everyone via the internet to valid their business in trading and such cryptocurrency. [ By the way, I dont know what cryptocurrency is and know nothing about it, so why would I purchase such? ] You need to return my funds in amount of {$10000.00} for such transaction or act performed by such business personnel is fraudulent. \n\nA person by the name XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX represented herself as a Coinbase.com employee or staff and is very knowledgeable with Coinbase.coms platform. If such is not true then the first paragraph in this notice before Coinbase.com, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, The Federal Trade Commission and the Security Exchange Commission is true that this activity that was transmitted and transpired on Coinbase.coms platform is FRAUD. \n\nIn the online records before the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau coinbase.com has admitted that such event or activity was not authorized therefore placing the word as UNAUTHORIZED meaning that Coinbase.com nor such employee of Coinbase.com did not have the authorization and consent to funnel with and tamper with the account that is set up in my name under Coinbase.com and XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX, XXXX. and therefore, the funds should have been immediately returned for if you clearly read the disclosure printed up and generated by Coinbase.com as their defense, it does not match up and does not validate or justify why such funds have not been returned back to my XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX, XXXX. account. \n\nAs we submit this to everyone as well as Coinbase.com the definition of FRAUD is clearly stated and explained below. \n\nCoinbase.com knows where the funds are and knows where the funds went and knows how to timely and effectively recover the funds and knows how to report an illegal or criminal activity or event to the local law enforcement authorities. \n\nBy now Coinbase.com should have a police report and too should have an IC3 report from the Federal Bureau of Investigation to show proof that such is not money laundering or FRAUD or a scam. \n\nI have attached a record for record certification where coinbase.com should be open and willing to produce certified records to support its business operation online as well as produce license, and E & O Omission Insurance Policy that his business should have under the property and casualty insurance to protect itself and his employees from liability. \nIn a pervious noted comment by coinbase.com representative, coinbase.com mention subpoena in order for anyone to get a subpoena they need to have a civil action performed against a party such as coinbase.com. Since such was mentioned and noted then coinbase.com should be open and willing to sign a consent form for a jury trial and not for such illegal or criminal event or activities that has transpired on coinbase.coms platform should not be heard by a magistrate judge or a circuit court judge, but a jury panel in which coinbase.com should be able to enter such business defense before a jury. \n\nI am consenting to a jury trial in this complaint in which the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau should be serving upon Coinbase.com for an answer, and response in nature to crediting back my account and transferring my funds back to XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. \n\nEverything that has been mentioned here will be used and mentioned in any court of law and before a jury. [ END ]","date_sent_to_company":"2022-06-12T05:40:58.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Other banking product or service","zip_code":"60657","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"5661757","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Coinbase, Inc.","date_received":"2022-06-12T04:58:07.000Z","state":"IL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Funds not handled or disbursed as instructed"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["When you noticed such an alert triggered Coinbase.com should have shut it down and locked the <em>consumer</em> account and pick up the phone and directly made such <em>communication</em> contact with the <em>consumer</em>. Coinbase.com needs to be shown to the <em>Consumer</em> Financial Protection Bureau, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation that such were performed."]},"sort":[7.556559,"5661757"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16063060","_score":7.242024,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"To Whom It Concern for dispute resolution, I have experienced significant prejudice regarding American Express credit card dispute handling controls, which potentially violate the spirit and intent of Title X of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act ( CFPA ). Title X of Dodd-Frank established the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) with the core mission of protecting American consumers from harmful practices within the financial industry. A critical aspect of this protection lies in the effective handling of credit card disputes, allowing consumers recourse when facing stubborn and unfaithful credit card issuers. I, XXXX XXXX, am currently being held liable for disputed charges despite providing strong evidence. I have concerns about inadequate training for XXXX  XXXX XXXX staff handling dispute resolutions. The shortcomings in the Amex dispute handling processes raise serious questions about their compliance with consumer protection standards and the principles underpinning the CFPB 's creation. The Dodd-Frank Act, through the establishment of the CFPB, aimed to empower consumers and hold financial institutions accountable for fair practices. Inadequate dispute resolution mechanisms directly undermine this objective. I, XXXX XXXX, respectfully request a full and permanent settlement of the dispute in my favor. \nAccording to Amex XXXX XXXX, XXXX. This code applies when the goods or services are not as advertised or described, making the cardholder feel deceived. XXXX Not As Described : This code is used when the received goods or services do not match the agreed-upon terms or quality. Services Not Received. This code is applicable when the cardholder did not receive the goods or services they paid for. According to Amexs terms of service, Amex encourages merchants to maintain high ethical standards and comply with Amexs rules and regulations. I respectfully request that these charges be disputed. I am requesting a full reversal of the misrepresented transactions. The Merchant has stopped communicating with me and makes no effort to provide services to me. \n\nI am burdened by financial and emotional distress as a result of XXXX XXXX 's deceptive practices. I am seeking justice and restitution for the damages incurred. Please grant me a reversal of transactions for my peace of mind and financial stability. I received no benefit and am a victim of unethical business practices. Please altruistically consider my circumstances. Your assistance is appreciated. \n\nI am requesting claims and defenses under Federal law 15 USC 1666i. This section specifies the cardholder 's liability is the value of the disputed transactions when the issuer is notified. Regulation Z, specifically 1026.12 of the TILA contains special credit card provisions that limit my liability. According to California Financial Code Section 2102, 17000 and Federal law principles. I reserve the right to refund. Consumers should be protected from financial loss. The Fair Credit Billing Act safeguards consumers from financial loss. I am requesting a reversal of multiple transactions due to material misrepresentation perpetrated by the merchant. I am withholding payment on the disputed charge ( s ) Please grant me a 100 % reversal because I was defrauded. I am now educating myself about these consumer laws, financial concepts, interest rates, credit card disputes, and Amex card member agreement. I was recently diagnosed with XXXX, which impaired my judgment and reaction time to this unconscionable activity. XXXX have sided with me, and I trust Amex will align with me. Thank you for your continued service and dedication to protecting customers The merchant, XXXX XXXX, perpetuates online mass marketing fraud with a wake of victims banding together. XXXX XXXX demonstrated a clear lack of ethical standards and has violated the Amex rules and regulations for merchants accepting their credit card customers. Due to his complete lack of communication and unauthorized use of credit card information, reconciliation is impossible. This is a common theme of victims of XXXX XXXX. I asked Amex to please reverse the transaction and let XXXX XXXX and me continue our dispute outside of Amex 's purview. \n\nAccording to Amexs terms of service, card issuers encourage merchants to maintain high ethical standards and comply with XXXX XXXX rules and regulations. XXXX XXXX, has demonstrated a clear lack of ethical standards and has violated XXXX rules and regulations. This is not a case of buyer 's remorse. I am exercising the chargeback right through my credit card issuer Amex. \n\n\n\n\nThe agreement states, \" XXXX XXXX XXXX agrees to return the full principal amount of {$41000.00}, along with the adjusted interest of {$1500.00}, totaling {$43000.00}, no later than 30 days from the date the capital was received by XXXX XXXX XXXX. In the event of failure to repay this amount by the agreed deadline, the XXXX acknowledges legal responsibility to pay the full amount and agrees that XXXX XXXX reserves the right to initiate a chargeback or take legal action to recover the outstanding balance. '' Its important to note I have reported the merchant to the regulating authorities for misuse of credit card information, misrepresentation, and mass marketing fraud. I have followed the Internet Crime Complaint Center, FTC and SEC suggestions for reporting this transaction to Amex as fraud. \n\nIve also connected with several others who were scammed in the same way. Theyve experienced the same : refund refusals, surprise fees, and unauthorized transactions. In many cases, when people posted bad reviews, they were pressured to remove them through threats of legal action, offers of partial refunds, or claims of fake reviews. \nPlease see the attached url and images of the reviews publicly online. \nXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX Recent case law applicable to my dispute : XXXX XXXX  filled XX/XX/XXXX from the United States District Court Southern District of Florida , Federal Trade Commission VS Ecom Genie Consulting , et all pursuant to Sections 13 ( b ) and 19 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C . 53 ( b ), 57b, and the Business Opportunity Rule. 2. Defendants use deceptive earnings claims to lure consumers into investing tens of thousands of dollars times borrowed against consumers ' homes and retirement funds to purchase what Defendants advertise as a surefire business opportunity. Touting their \" track record of success '' and a \" money-back guarantee, '' Defendants claim that purchasers will earn substantial passive income from e-commerce stores managed by Defendants. In reality, the promised earnings rarely, if ever, materialize, and most consumers lose substantial amounts. 3. The Business Opportunity Rule is designed to help prospective purchasers evaluate the risks to investing in a new business by prohibiting misrepresentations and requiring sellers to disclose key information such as substantiation for any earnings claims, past litigation history, and contact information for prior purchasers. Defendants routinely misrepresent the company 's refund policy, and potential earnings and fail to make any of the required disclosures to prospective purchasers.\n\nXXXX XXXX filled Filed XX/XX/XXXX from the United States District Court Central District of Califonia , Federal Trade Commision VS Acend Capventures Inc , et all The FTC brings this action for Defendants violations of Section 5 ( a ) of the Federal Trade Commission Act ( FTC Act ), 15 U.S.C. 45 ( a ), the FTCs Trade Regulation Rule entitled Disclosure Requirements and Prohibitions Concerning Business Opportunities ( Business Opportunity Rule or Rule ), 16 C.F.R. Part 437, as amended, and the Consumer Review Fairness Act ( CRFA ), 15 U.S.C. 45b. For these violations, the FTC seeks relief, including a temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunction ; monetary relief ; and other relief, including an asset freeze, appointment of a receiver, and immediate access to Defendants business premises, pursuant to Sections 13 ( b ) and 19 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 53 ( b ), 57b, the Business Opportunity Rule, and the CRFA. After consumers invest, the promised gains never materialize, and consumers are left with depleted bank accounts and hefty credit card bills. Defendants scheme has defrauded consumers of at least {$25.00} million.\n\nXXXX XXXX Filed XXXX  from the United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania , Federal Trade Commission VS ECOMMERCE EMPIRE BUILDERS et all . The FTC brings this action for Defendants violations of Section 5 ( a ) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 45 ( a ) ; the FTCs Trade Regulation Rule entitled Disclosure Requirements and Prohibitions Concerning Business Opportunities ( Business Opportunity Rule or Rule ) 16 C.F.R. Part 437, as amended ; and the Consumer Review Fairness Act ( CRFA ), 15 U.S.C. 45b. For these violations, the FTC seeks relief, including a temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunction, monetary relief, and other relief, pursuant to Sections 13 ( b ), and 19 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 53 ( b ), 57b ; the Business Opportunity Rule ; and the CRFA. Defendants market their business opportunities as Done For You Services, Case XXXX Filed XX/XX/XXXX from the United States District Court District of New Jersey , Federal Trade Commission VS THEFBAMACHINE INC et all , The FTC brings this action for Defendants ' violations of Section 5 ( a ) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 45 ( a ) ; the FTC 's Trade Regulation Rule entitled \" Disclosure Requirements and Prohibitions Concerning Business Opportunities '' ( \" Business Opportunity Rule '' or \" Rule '' ), 16 C.F.R. Part 437, as amended ; and the Consumer Review Fairness Act ( \" CRFA '' ), 15 U.S.C. 45b. For these violations, the FTC seeks relief, including a temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunction ; monetary relief ; and other relief, including an asset freeze, appointment of a receiver, and immediate access to Defendants ' business premises, pursuant to Sections 13 ( b ) and 19 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 53 ( b ), 57b ; the Business Opportunity Rule ; and the CRFA. \n\nCase XXXX Filled XX/XX/XXXX from the United States District For The Southern District of Florida Federal Trade Commission VS DK AUTOMATION LLC The FTC brings this action under Sections 5 ( a ), ( m ) ( 1 ) ( A ) - ( B ), 13 ( b ), and 19 of the Federal Trade Commission Act ( FTC Act ), 15 U.S.C. 45 ( a ), 45 ( m ) ( 1 ) ( A ) - ( B ), 53 ( b ) and 57b, which authorize the FTC to seek, and the Court to order, temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief, monetary relief, civil penalties, and other relief for Defendants acts or practices in violation of Section 5 ( a ) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 45 ( a ), the FTCs Trade Regulation Rule entitled Disclosure Requirements and Prohibitions Concerning Business Opportunities ( Business Opportunity Rule or Rule ), 16 C.F.R. Part 437, as amended, the Consumer Review Fairness Act of 2016 ( CRFA ), 15 U.S.C. 45b, and prior Commission determinations concerning unfair and deceptive acts or practices in commerce. The amended Business Opportunity Rule became effective on XX/XX/XXXX, and has since that date remained in full force and effect. \n\nI have enlisted the local San Jose police department, the California Department of Financial Innovation and Protection, the California Department of Justice, the California Department of Consumer Affairs, the Better Business Bureau, SEC, the Internet Crime Complaint Center, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, International Consumer Protection and Enforcement Network ( ICPEN ) California Privacy Protection Agency and the Federal Trade Commission. While these agencies may have different jurisdictions and specific mandates, they share common goals of protecting consumers like myself. \n\nWith clean hands and good faith, XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-09-19T10:00:43.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"89139","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"16063060","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY","date_received":"2025-09-19T08:07:03.000Z","state":"NV","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Due to his complete lack of <em>communication</em> and unauthorized use of credit card information, reconciliation is impossible. This is a common theme of victims of XXXX XXXX. I asked Amex to please reverse the transaction and let XXXX XXXX and me continue our dispute outside of Amex 's purview. \n\nAccording to Amexs terms of service, card issuers <em>encourage</em> merchants to maintain high ethical standards and comply with XXXX XXXX rules and regulations."]},"sort":[7.242024,"16063060"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"10041246","_score":6.992984,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I. INTRODUCTION : In the matter at hand, the Consumer ( Complainant ) [ XXXX ] alleges inaccuracies and material misrepresentations in credit reporting by Experian for XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX with corresponding account number XXXX. Despite multiple disputes and clear evidence of inaccuracies, Experian has consistently failed to correct the information, resulting in significant harm to Complainants creditworthiness and financial stability. This complaint outlines the pattern of noncompliance by Experian and the legal basis for Complainant 's claims. XXXX. RESULTS OF EXPERIANS LATEST REINVESTIGATION : On XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, Complainant received the results of the latest reinvestigation from Experian regarding the disputed collection account reported by XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) on behalf of XXXX XXXX. The investigation revealed several critical procedural violations under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) and the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). These violations include TSIs failure to properly validate the debt, discrepancies in the amounts reported, conflicting Dates of First Delinquency ( DoFD ) across credit reporting agencies, and Experian 's failure to conduct a thorough reinvestigation. Furthermore, both XXXX and Experian continue to report the collection account despite the validation process being incomplete, violating the legal requirement under Regulation F to cease collection activities until the collection account has been verified. XXXX and Experians violations not only undermine the accuracy of the information being reported but also call into question the legality of the accounts presence on the credit report. Below, the key issues are outlined in detail, supporting the demand for the immediate removal of the collection account from the credit files and reports Experian maintains and disseminates regarding Complainant. The violations continue to involve : XXXX. Unreliability Of Mailing Collection Notice to Last Known Address : Under Title 12 Part X, Supplement I to Part 1006, a debt collector who sends a required disclosure in writing or electronically and who receives a notice that the disclosure was not delivered has not sent the disclosure in a manner that is reasonably expected to provide actual notice. ( 12 C.F.R. pt. 1006, Supp. I, Comment 42 ( a ) ( 1 ) 2. ). However, when collection notices are sent by mail a debt collector satisfies the notification requirement if the debt collector mails a printed copy of a disclosure to the consumer 's last known address, unless the debt collector, at the time of mailing, knows or should know that the consumer does not currently reside at, or receive mail at, that location. ( 12 C.F.R. pt. 1006, Supp. I, Comment 42 ( a ) ( 1 ) 3. ). XXXX has demonstrated it subscribes and utilizes the services of XXXX, Experian, and XXXX by virtue of placement of collection account/tradeline in the files XXXX, Experian, and XXXX maintain and disseminate regarding Complainant. The collection account was allegedly for services at an address Complainant lived in XXXX, but that he vacated by XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. In contrast XXXX would not mail a collection notice until XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, over XXXX ( XXXX ) years after ComplainanXXXX vacated the address for service. While the purported dates of first delinquency do not match among all three CRAs, each CRA places the alleged XXXX within the latter portion of XXXX, thus implying XXXX, as furnisher knew or had reasonablre cause to believe the address information the had for Complainant was stale. As such a standard industry practice would be conduct a soft or hard inquiry on files maintained by the CRAs to obtain last known address information. That XXXX failed to do so implies it did not make reasonable efforts to provide actual notice to Complainant, as required under Section 1006.42 ( a ) ( 1 ). The absence of an inquiry with XXXX, Experian, or XXXX undermines any claim that XXXX sending the notice to the service address was a reasonable expectation of delivery. XXXX. Failure to Provide Proper Validation : Given XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX not complete the validation of the debt in accordance with the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ). Under 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ), a debt collector must cease all collection activities ( including reporting to credit bureaus ) until the debt is verified. The XX/XX/XXXX response from XXXX shows that the validation process was still incomplete. Additionally, XXXX listed the alleged debt amount as {$740.00}, but the documentation they used to validate the debt shows a different amount {$940.00} from XXXX XXXX. This discrepancy indicates XXXX is furnishing incomplete or inaccurate information to the credit bureaus, which is a violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act FCRA, ( 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ). Therefore, the collection account/tradeline should have been, and now must be removed. XXXX. Conflicting Dates of First Delinquency ( DoFD ) : Discrepancies exist between the Dates of First Delinquency reported by Experian, XXXX, and XXXX, which were each allegedly verified by XXXX as accurate. These inconsistencies violate the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) provisions requiring maximum possible accuracy ( 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) ). Conflicting DoFDs, each of which is repeatedly verified as accurate create materially misleading information, which can be ( just as damaging to a consumer when it comes from a CRA as opposed to when it comes from a [ data ] furnisher. ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Failure to XXXX a Reasonable Investigation : XXXX rapid response ( including selective adjustments, such as removing the collection status for XX/XX/XXXX ) indicates inadequate reinvestigation. The FCRA mandates a thorough reinvestigation such that ( once the credit reporting agency receives notice that the consumer disputes information contained in his or her credit reportit can target its resources in a more efficient manner and conduct a more thorough investigation. ) ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX. XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) ) and ( [ a ] t that point, the investigative burden on the credit reporting agencies decreases because, once a claimed inaccuracy is pinpointed by the consumer, the [ credit-reporting ] agency incurs only the cost of reinvestigating that XXXX piece of disputed information. XXXX, XXXX XXXX at XXXX ( quoting XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) ). ) ( XXXX v. XXXX XXXX. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ) ). Under Under 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ), CRAs must reinvestigate any disputed information in a consumer 's file, including personal identifying information. ( Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Federal Trade Commission, XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX Experian XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, No. XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX. XXXX, XXXX ) ). A CRAs reliance on automated processes ( ACDV ) [ XXXX ] is insufficient for a reasonable reinvestigation under the FCRA because ( there are circumstances in which the FCRA may require a credit-reporting agency to go beyond the initial [ A ] CDV process and verify the accuracy of its initial source of information. ) ( XXXX v. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) ), for example when a consumer ( alert [ XXXX ] the [ credit-reporting ] agency to the possibility that the source may be unreliable or when a [ credit-reporting ] agency itself knows or [ has reasonable cause to believe ] that the source is unreliable [ because contradictory information is reported for the same account/tradeline on the same report regarding the consumer. ] ) ( 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 XXXXXX/XX/XXXX, and under the FDCPA and FCRA, collection activitiesincluding credit reportingmust cease during the validation process if a validation notice was not sent within five ( XXXX ) days of initial communication with Complainant ( 12 CFR 1006.34 ( a ) ). Reporting the collection account during this period violates procedural requirements because under CFPB interpretation of Regulation F, ( a debt collector who sends the requisite validation disclosure in writing or electronically but receives notice that the disclosure was not delivered to the consumer has not sent the disclosure in a manner that is reasonably expected to provide actual notice. ) ( 12 C.F.R. pt. 1006, Supp. I, Comment 42 ( a ) ( 1 ) 2. ). 6. Failure In Accurate Reporting in Conjunction With Debt Collection Practices : TSIs failure to follow standard practices in verifying the complainants address, such as through skip-tracing, is a key issue in this case. While Experian may not mandate the use of skip-tracing, it expects debt collectors to have reasonable policies and procedures in place to ensure the information furnished to Experian meets the standard of Maximum possible accuracy under 1681s-2. In order for information regarding the XXXX collection to be furnished accurately and completely, XXXX would have needed to meet its responsibilities under the FDCPA. XXXX failed to implement reasonable policies and procedures to ensure they mailed collection notice to an address for Complainant that would have reasonably been expected to be received by Complainant. Experians own web blog encourages data furnishers to use skip-tracing methods to at a minimum, to confirm the accuracy of the addresses provided by original creditors when engaging in collection activity, writing ( [ s ] kip-tracing is the first-step in effective debt collection. This essential practice helps locate individuals [, ] ) and further ( [ s ] kip-tracing is the process of locating individuals who have moved or otherwise become difficult to find. This technique is particularly important for financial institutions and debt collectors, enabling them to contact debtors and recover outstanding payments. Given the high stakes involved, mastering skip-tracing best practices is crucial for ensuring successful debt recovery. ) ( XXXX XXXX, Skip Tracing Best Practices : Improving Debt Collection and Recovery, Experian Insights Blog ( XX/XX/XXXX ) ). Under the FCRA, Experian is obligated to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of the information it reports ( 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) ). Upon receiving notice of a dispute from Complainant, Experian was required to conduct a reasonable investigation into the accuracy of the disputed information, as mandated by 15 U.S.C. 1681i. Once Complainant notified Experian of XXXX  failure to mail collection notices to the correct address, Experian incurred the cost of reinvestigating that piece of disputed information. Had Experian conducted a thorough, reasonable reinvestigation under Experian Report Number XXXX, it would have discovered XXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX response. In that response, XXXX stated that it \" mailed an Initial Demand Letter to the address provided by the client as a good address, no mail returns were received [, ] '' and identified the address XXXX used. A comparison between that address with Experians own records would have shown that the address to which XXXX mailed its XXXX XX/XX/XXXX collection notice was an outdated address to reach Complainant by over XXXX ( XXXX ), as it was listed on the final bill from the purported original creditor in XXXX, and was no longer the complainants current address. Experian would have then concluded that XXXX mailed the collection notice to an old address per the Experian records, and that ultimately XXXX failed to take necessary steps to verify the complainants address, thereby rendering its conduct under the FDCPA unlawful under and making its reporting of the account/tradeline false and/or misleading under the FCRA. By failing to act on this critical information from XXXX, Experian knew or had reasonable cause to believe XXXX had not verified Complainants current address, yet allowed materially misleading and inaccurate and misleading information to persist in the files and reports Experian maintains and disseminates regarding Complainant, an in turn violated the maximum possible accuracy requirements of 1681e ( b ). Experians failure to act after receiving notice from Complainant, and willful persistence of information it had reasonable cause to believe was inaccurate or misleading and demonstrates a clear violation of obligation to reinvestigate the specific inaccuracy as required by 1681i. A CRA ( recklessly violates the Act if it takes an action that is not only a violation under a reasonable reading of the statutes terms, but shows that the company ran a risk of violating the law substantially greater than the risk associated with a reading that was merely careless. ) ( XXXX, XXXX XXXX at XXXX ). Here, Experian ran a substantial risk of violating the law by failing to act on clear evidence, including XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX response, which indicated that XXXX sent the collection notice to an outdated address. XXXX failure to address this discrepancy demonstrates reckless disregard for the accuracy of the information it was reporting. Therefore, the collection account must be removed, as its continued reporting is both materially misleading and unlawful under the FCRA, due to TSIs failure to verify the complainants address and Experians failure to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation following the notice of dispute. Footnotes : [ XXXX ] A natural person and a person and consumer as defined by the FCRA at 15 U.S.C. 1681a ( b ) and ( c ) ; [ 2 ] An XXXX is an automated procedure whereby a reporting agency matches its electronic data against electronic data provided by a creditor ; if the data match, the information in the credit report is deemed verified. ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ) ). In the matter here, the ACDV processes appears to have used in conjunction with automatic updates even after notice was provided by Complainant that the source of the information was unreliable vis a vis the disparate DoFD across XXXX, Experian, XXXX, and the disclosure that XXXX failed to deliver notice to Complainant in a manner that could reasonably have been expected to provide actual notice to Complainant. ( see 12 C.F.R. pt. 1006, Supp. I, Comment 42 ( a ) ( 1 ) 2. ) ).","date_sent_to_company":"2024-09-06T18:16:26.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"48111","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"10041246","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2024-09-06T18:10:10.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Experians own web blog <em>encourages</em> data furnishers to use skip-tracing methods to at a minimum, to confirm the accuracy of the addresses provided by original creditors when engaging in collection <em>activity</em>, writing ( [ s ] kip-tracing is the first-step in effective debt collection. This essential practice helps locate individuals [, ] ) and further ( [ s ] kip-tracing is the process of locating individuals who have moved or otherwise become difficult to find."],"product":["Credit reporting or other personal <em>consumer</em> reports"],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the <em>consumer</em> and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response"]},"sort":[6.992984,"10041246"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8576967","_score":5.276313,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)\n\nComplaint ID #2XXXX\n\nOriginally submitted on XXXX XXXX XXXX, as a Federal Reserve banking services credit card product issue, the problem stated as a purchase shown on my account statement, filed against XXXX XXXX, has been formally withdrawn, given better understanding of the Federal regulatory divisions.  \n\nSo for clarity, this complaint is intended against XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and its credit card subsidiaries for violations of the legacy and recently issued customer compliance outlook dated XXXX.\n\nThe Federal Reserve consumer protection and community development to help ensure a fair and transparent financial services marketplace that benefits all Americans.\n\nFairness and transparency  along with consistency  are guiding principles that inform my perspective on bank supervision and regulation. \n\nTogether, these three elements help to ensure that the supervisory expectations are clear and, in doing so, encourage open communication between banks and supervisors. \n\nAs the Consumer Compliance Outlook (CCO) furthers these goals by providing financial institutions, compliance professionals, and the public with information about compliance with the laws and regulations that protect consumers and support investments in communities.\n\nId share that as the control documents fall into an ever-growing directory of regulations, laws, and advisories, its increasingly difficult for consumers to point to a single control document to gain the banks support staff attention i.e., REG E, once stop the process and guided prescribed steps required, without such assistance its often difficult to expedite consumer concerns.\n\nAmerican Consumers and lawmakers have repeatedly called for common-sense oversight surrounding personal financial data that gives consumers more control.\n\nTowards that end, there needs to be a restriction on what and how financial data can be bought and sold with, by, and through Big Tech firms as they morph into payment giants, demanding restrictive actions and oversight of peer organizations.\n\nIf tech names can show connective on financial transaction, its intimidation of consumers, intended or not, is seemingly insurmountable. So, if you go to the bank and are then returned to the culprit, where do you go for assistance?\n\nAlthough my complaint requires filing with both CFPB and FTC, its difficult to explain the issue without referencing both and correctly the U.S. financial institutions credit card issuers in these complaints the language may vary, however the results convey and enforce uniformly the same.\n\nU.S. Banks will not accept formal filings of complaint against XXXX XXXXXXXX., and thus, no consumer dispute calendar is ever engaged. \n\nAnd recently, just confirming those facts I found can generate a new series of actions by XXXX  about consumer identity and/or financially related inquiries, although a consumer has a known relationship with XXXX.\n\nIt sounds as if the banks refer consumer into XXXX, but the banks support and service personnel advise,   its difficult to contact XXXX by phone (but, easier than the standard long convoluted online client assistance offered by XXXX as a standard service method) so, expect long wait times, and please avoid Mondays under all circumstances. \n\nI wont call names but, one service representative, told the bank didnt accept disputes because all issues involving XXXX had to have XXXX  approval to resolve and only after insisting she offered an alternative.\n\nThe Banks representative asked me to hold. She stated,   however when I return dont refer to me, just explain the circumstances to XXXX, Ill listen silently and when the Apple rep. agrees and disconnects remain on the line and Ill return to insure a credit is issued. \n\nTraditionally, however, the banks representatives simply state questions related to XXXX credits and charges are exclusively handled by XXXX.\n\nThere is one exception, specific to XXXX XXXX deservant of special note, which was a back office engagement.\n\nIn the XXXX XXXX XXXX, on three separate and distinct dates, the Banks automation kicked-off the following advice:\n\nPlease let us know if you or an authorized user recognize the purchase below. The sooner we hear from you, the sooner we can help protect your account from unauthorized purchases.\n\nOn all three (3) the merchant, XXXX for XXXX, each had received an automated DECLINE, the electronic notice further stated.\n\nIf you respond yes, declined transactions will stay declinedAfter responding, try your card again.\n\nI received the same notice on XXXX XXXX and on XXXX XXXX XXXX, at which time I called the Bank to inquiry why Id started receiving these notices. I, like many, dont always use the same card from purchase to purchase or month to month.\n\nBut, I didnt realize these notices were connected to the Banks systematic authorization application and would generate auto-declines on any purchase in the future anytime the card was used and without explanation.\n\nIt was a holiday weekend, as I recall, so it would have been  Wednesday, XXXX XXXX XXXX, when I spoke to a Bank customer service representative, who asked for patience as she transferred the call. \n\nThe authorization rep., wasnt as I recall being in the least concerned for my understanding, which was usual but, it was clear the authorization rep., needed and was going to clear the decline against XXXX at all cost.\n\nWhat made it especially memorable was the fact, he advised the card would stop every time used until the decline was lifted and when I asked why he advised it was the fact the card had a decline for a charge against XXXX? \n\nThe comment, the authorization issue, was so bothersome. I stated it would not be acceptable, and Id need a name and what policy of XXXX XXXX this decision was tied to?\n\nThat was the first time he began searching for work around-s but it was the first time he advised hed insure the card continued to operate.\n\nI can only assume he re-instated or removed it all together because wed agreed Id reach out to advise but, when I researched the one item, it lead to another and quickly became overwhelming.\n\nI cant imagine what a senior or young college-age-consumer or anyone working outside the home could do to manage through the process and maintain employment, or a reasonable family-life or a life, period.\n\nWith no assistance from the Bank I attempted to complete a forensic audit and recap of the credit cards transactions held with XXXX XXXX alone, for XXXX:\n\nLet me walk you through just one of many transactions with one credit card processor.\n\nXXXX, XXXX bills my XXXX account twice once for Cloud storage and the second a music subscription.\n\nXXXX RECONCILIATION DOC: of XXXX billing shows both a Music Subscription and Cloud storage charge dated XXXX and XXXX.\n\nREMEMBER XXXX XXXX automated system reports a serial of transaction requiring authorization and in discussion with their authorization support member, basically its agree or every future authorization with be, declined and, the advice offered is I have number to offer for assistance but, staffing is limited (notifications dated XXXX XXXX and XXXX).\n\nMost importantly, no documentation is kicked off or documented and/or disclosures generated.\n\nXXXX SUPPORT is online only, so the consumer is required to figure out the description successfully to get to the end-result. \n\nIf youre unsuccessful, you can ask a chat-bot which offers the same details in an endless loop with no live support available so, can anyone see how this meets the ADA requirements or timelessness standards?\n\nXXXX, XXXX also bills XXXX XXXX account XXXX, for Music Services and a separate generated billing and statement (attached)\n\nXXXX, 1XXXX XXXX  bills XXXX XXXX account XXXX# titled BILL CA.\n\nXXXX, XXXX bills XXXX XXXX account XXXX# traditionally Music storage charge.\n\nXXXX, XXXX bills XXXX XXXX account XXXX# traditionally Music storage charge.\n\nXXXX XXXX bill XXXX XXXX account XXXX# traditionally Music storage charge.\n\nXXXX XXXX bills XXXX XXXX account XXXX# traditionally Music storage charge.\n\nXXXX XXXX bills XXXX XXXX account XXXX# traditionally Music storage charge.\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX bills XXXX XXXX account XXXX# traditionally TV service.\n\nXXXX XXXX bills XXXX XXXX account XXXX# traditionally Music storage charge.\n\nXXXX XXXX accounts once, re-numbered, not continue to report or display so, you need bank assistance to determine long-term damage and access. \n\nAnd whether inadvertent or intentional, the scope and manner of XXXX actions and provide warning of how easily monopolist organizations set-up shop undetected before the American people. \n\nId also add, until this XXXX, Ive never requested access to Music or TV and have never used either, although the XXXX APPS are available but, Ive never downloaded the TV APP. \n\nOne critical point who buys a service which is never used, or the required app to use the service, is never downloaded in a closed loop environment is impossible to use without XXXX authorization.\n\nStorage has been previously sold to XXXX and has now returned to XXXX but, many times at the point of opening, the photo files it holds  immediately degrade until unusable. \n\nEach of these entities (XXXX and XXXX) having platform interest, storage i.e., one picture generations additional opportunities, to edit one generating two files of storage, each picture edit standalone into multiple files driving up storage expenses consumers may or may not be aware, extra document review generates a new file, etc. , thus device, and related entities.\n\nLet alone temporary files, which are maintained without many times consumer awareness so, files only useful to the big 3 or 4 generate endless storage opportunities and up-charges and billings, etc.\n\nXXXX recently began demanding privacy issues of responsibilities and assuming ownership over the phone producer. \n\nSo is the seller the owner, or the manufacturer if XXXX or XXXX, etc., the producer or does every owner thereafter become the privacy owner, selling, and enabled to start new relationships, etc., so where do consumers reclaim privacy data exposed?\n\nAnd since XXXX isnt a traditional entrant, why do they have an interest in your data other than to sell financial materials to others but, clearly these actions set the ground-work of determinations of unwinding products and services unconsidered.\n\nBohemian corporations like XXXX, seem to express and engage in cooperative relationships with peer organizations to pierce traditional oversight measures which weve observed in the U.K. i.e., XXXX accused of destroying sellers by withholding money in so-called, reserve accounts structures. XXXX payment policy states the reasons for putting money on hold include a sudden increase in sales, a shop having only made its first sale recently, the shop committing a policy violation or other risk factors.\n\nSome sellers told the XXXX that two reserve periods were imposed on them consecutively, said XXXX XXXX, XXXX Business reporter, headline XXXX accused of destroying sellers by withholding money, published XXXX XXXX XXXX.\n\nBut, theres a much larger issue which never consolidated by oversight there are direct sub-sets all tied to financial transactions and services which combined directly disadvantage not only small businesses but, consumers who are easily overwhelmed not only by the direct correlation but, all the associated and unseen correlations, continues XXXX.\n\nXXXX is an online marketplace that allows independent sellers to set up their own shop. It specialises in bespoke items, handicrafts or things not usually available in High Street shops.\n\nXXXX XXXX. is a US-based company which trades its shares on the XXXX XXXX XXXX in New York, where it listed its stock in XXXX. XXXX shares currently trading at XXXX each - a far cry from an all-time high of XXXX during the Covid pandemic in XXXX.\n\nIts biggest shareholders are major financial institutions such as XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX.\n\nThe company is led by chief executive XXXX XXXX who has worked at an eclectic mix of businesses such as online auction site XXXX, the internet chat firm XXXX and XXXX XXXXXXXX. He has been chief executive since XXXX.\n\nIt was originally founded in XXXX by XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX who started the business from XXXX XXXX Brooklyn apartment. None of them remain with the firm.\n\nThe CFPB must advance quickly plans to begin the tactical widening issues  of rule-making that would subject XXXX XXXX XXXX and others to supervision as it examines how companies monetize data that and continues an unfair assault on consumers.\n\nAnd even with items highlighted the list unseen considerations continues consumers and small business are assaults daily including, independent Internet companies affect anyone as consumers are tracked online through XXXX and other browsers, given the ability without oversight to freely, come and go-to browser comes through search engine the playground of the Big 3 or 4 i.e., XXXX, etc. with each browser uniquely given comprehensive privacy protection and controls but, in protection of whos interest?\n\nTens of millions of consumer are or arent  protected not at their behest everyday online activities, searching browsers, email, on the unlimited platforms of XXXX XXXX XXXX, and XXXX\n\nBut, whats clear, American CORPs have increasingly jumped the moon and time is ticking, and not on the side of U.S. consumers. \n\nHow XXXX has accessed and kept up-to-date posting against numerous MasterCard/VISA account numbers, sometime able to access closed accounts which have been closed for fraud activities.\n\nReporting any fraud generally receives no follow-up most consumers would state but, an account closure, new card and account generated. \n\nAny unauthorized transactions until recently, when I found multiple transactions from a Tech Giant, which were reversed over months and no other action taken.\n\nIt also points out the varieties methods for MasterCard/VISA accounts are recorded and records-kept by banks, some disappear such as XXXX XXXX systemically goes through and removes accounts so, how does a client further identify all activity and does the FED have any accounting standard?\n\nAnd from a safety and liability stand-point how many accounts are reconciled by a certified public auditing and accounting corporation perspective?\n\nAnd if XXXX is off the reservation, how does such measurement impact bank stability overall today and into the future?\n\nXXXX will pay XXXX to resolve harassment charges after top executives sent live spiders and cockroaches to two bloggers who wrote critical articles about the company.\n\nSenior staff at the US tech firm launched a petrifying harassment campaign against XXXX  and XXXX XXXX, a couple from Massachusetts who run the e-commerce Bytes blog.\n\nToday its impossible to say what wont be done in the steeple decline of civility, during COVID-19 and the housing crisis who didnt financial services CEO, swearing at American consumers and stockholders?\n\nExecutives were upset with some of the coverage on the blog and said the writers had to be burned down.\n\nBesides a box of live spiders and cockroaches, the couple was sent a funeral wreath, a bloody pig mask, and a book about surviving the loss of a spouse.\n\nIna Steiner received bizarre and sometimes threatening messages on Twitter purportedly from groups such as an irritable bowel syndrome patient support group and the Communist Party of the United States.\n\nThe pairs home address was also posted online alongside invitations for strangers to attend sexual encounters, yard sales and parties, while the employees made plans to break into their garage and place a GPS tracker in their car.\n\nThe XXXX said the harassment had a damaging and permanent impact, on them emotionally, psychologically, physically, reputationally, and financially.\n\nOver three years after the employees were prosecuted, the US Justice Department has now charged XXXX with stalking, witness tampering and obstruction of justice, said XXXX XXXX of the Telegraph under the headline, XXXX ordered to pay couple XXXX after senior executives sent bloody pig mask and live cockroaches, published XXXX XXXX XXXX\n\nXXXX XXXX  acting as Massachusetts US Attorney, said: XXXX engaged in absolutely horrific, criminal conduct.The companys employees and contractors involved in this campaign put the victims through pure hell, in a petrifying campaign aimed at silencing their reporting and protecting the XXXX brand.\n\nThe need for stronger, sustained and long-term oversight is clear and each case filed takes the marketplace further and further down the rabbits hole but, neither commitment nor oversight shows true interest in resolving such acts, if it were so, the record would show success but, it doesnt because neither institution public nor private is focused on the American peoples interest to the financial services great demise.      \n\nThus when I advise it appears XXXX has access to credit card numbers and account unrestricted and even further credit reporting agencies, all form a web-connection with concern, add to the team MasterCard, Visa who are exclusive unrestricted parties and American consumer are basically unprotected victims awaiting further victimization in a pool of sharks.\n\nIt may not seem the same but, it is when XXXX bills you repeatedly for the same services and holds hostage any photos or documents refusing to save or hold documents and refining the storage held and doing this while having been paid for the service, shows no controls in place i.e., Your iCloud storage is fullnotifications, actions, dated 1XXXX XXXX, etc. XXXX  shows no controls or correlation, continuing to forward notifications for many devices from one record which appears as its organized to overwhelm clients, taking lazy revenue dollars against the consumer and doubling or tripling revenue, i.e., Your iCloud storage is fullBecause youve exceeded your storage plan, dated XXXX, etc.  \n\nIn addition, XXXX has established direct connection links so, even passing and reviewing monthly transactions generations Thank you for viewing purchase details associated, and sets new parameters which can convey intended or not an implied threat and why does XXXX need a live-connection if this is the same service provided by US banks?\n\nNotifications dated XXXX XXXX\n\nIf nothing else is true, each additional touch conveys exceptional status between U.S. banks, which are regulated with XXXX right, wrong, or indifferent?\n\nIt creates a status intended or not, which is advantageous to XXXX alone and further, oversight and regulatory understanding and complexity safety. \n\nThe most important rule making for the CFPB in XXXX will be the Tech Giants\n\nIn the absence of Congressional actions only the FED-regulators and the U.S. Courts are ability to exercise some controls and corporations and financial services are already heading back to the U.S. Courts to destabilize the marketplace, this only an example of the liability and regulatory environmental landscape, collapsing onto American consumers.\n\nWorse than the conscious destabilizing action are unconscious impacts when corporations extend pressures as the parents seen in the last Congressional hearing with XXXX XXXX, it can become immobilizing to the human psyche. XXXX  walks out feeling put upon but, hes wrong just as financial services, internet service providers and the Federal government are the civilization fails whenever every day for We the People is the story of David and Goliath, Congress plays a continued game as it allows this issues unaddressed to go to the U.S. Courts or become Executive Orders.\n\nIncreasingly, its clear, its not a matter of whos watching the hens house, theyre busy watching from XXXX, CO no longer concerned American consumer will find, discover or take rath but, its foolish to believe your actions are invisible everyones replaceable and theres always one born every minute, even smarter oh and its a presidential election year, as the fryers hearing up on bad behavior.\n\nFinally, as XXXX XXXX, the FED and regulatory bring a new merger for consideration, almost like the XXXX XXXX), which the FED brought forward and ultimately become XXXX XXXX, which continues to bleed consumer confidence and legal actions its clear Justice needs a much larger and better partner than the FED who seems to have lost its oversight expertise.     \n\nIt knows until the law addresses the People intent, its basically waiting for appeal, a second bite at the same issues upon appeal and its wrong, We the People depend on righteousness to prevail, known.\n\nThank you in advance for your guidance and assistance.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-03-19T22:56:46.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"06066","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8576967","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","date_received":"2024-03-19T21:49:41.000Z","state":"CT","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Card was charged for something you did not purchase with the card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["The Federal Reserve <em>consumer</em> protection and community development to help ensure a fair and transparent financial services marketplace that benefits all Americans.\n\nFairness and transparency  along with consistency  are guiding principles that inform my perspective on bank supervision and regulation. \n\nTogether, these three elements help to ensure that the supervisory expectations are clear and, in doing so, <em>encourage</em> open <em>communication</em> between banks and supervisors."]},"sort":[5.276313,"8576967"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":13,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":13}]}},"product":{"doc_count":13,"product":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":5,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":5}]}},{"key":"Credit card","doc_count":3,"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":3}]}},{"key":"Checking or savings account","doc_count":2,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Other banking product or service","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Debt collection","doc_count":2,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Auto debt","doc_count":1},{"key":"I do not know","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Mobile or digital wallet","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"issue":{"doc_count":13,"issue":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Improper use of your report","doc_count":3,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Reporting company used your report improperly","doc_count":3}]}},{"key":"Managing an account","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Funds not handled or disbursed as instructed","doc_count":1},{"key":"Problem accessing account","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Card was charged for something you did not purchase with the card","doc_count":1},{"key":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement","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":"Communication tactics","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Used obscene, profane, or other abusive language","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Fraud or scam","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Unable to get your credit report or credit score","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Other problem getting your report or credit score","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Written notification about debt","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Didn't receive notice of right to dispute","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"timely":{"doc_count":13,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":13}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":13,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":11},{"key":"Closed with non-monetary relief","doc_count":2}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":13,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":13}]}},"company":{"doc_count":13,"company":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","doc_count":3},{"key":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":2},{"key":"AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY","doc_count":1},{"key":"Block, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"CL Holdings LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"Coinbase, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"DISCOVER BANK","doc_count":1},{"key":"EQUIFAX, INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","doc_count":1},{"key":"NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE COMPANY LLC","doc_count":1}]}},"state":{"doc_count":13,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"TX","doc_count":3},{"key":"CT","doc_count":2},{"key":"MT","doc_count":2},{"key":"FL","doc_count":1},{"key":"IL","doc_count":1},{"key":"MI","doc_count":1},{"key":"NC","doc_count":1},{"key":"NV","doc_count":1},{"key":"NY","doc_count":1}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":13,"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":3}]}},"tags":{"doc_count":13,"tags":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}}},"_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":{}}}