{"took":325,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":60,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"19693304","_score":25.505093,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"Entity : Capital One Bank ( Issuer Servicer Furnisher ) Consumer : XXXX XXXX Accounts : XXXX Capital One credit card accounts ( including but not limited to accounts ending XXXX and XXXX ) Primary Issue : Autopay Failure + Internal System Error Admission + Audit Refusal + Inaccurate/Unstable Furnishing I. XXXX XXXX at XXXX This complaint concerns systemic servicing instability and inaccurate credit furnishing by Capital One across XXXX separate accounts. \n\nThis is not a consumer nonpayment case. \n\nThis is a failure of issuer-controlled payment mechanisms ( autopay + card lock ), followed by fee assessment, delinquency pressure, and refusal to provide a written audit or furnishing confirmation after admitting internal system error. \n\n\n\nXXXX. Autopay Failure Issuer-Controlled Mechanism Breakdown XX/XX/year> Last successful autopay processed. \nXX/XX/year> Scheduled autopay did not process. \n\nI received no advance notice that : Autopay had been XXXX, Autopay had disconnected, or Autopay was no longer active.\n\nWhen I contacted Capital One, representatives gave conflicting explanations : Autopay was not set up.\n\nAutopay was set up.\n\nAutopay may have disconnected. \nI was warned late fees would accrue unless I paid immediately. \n\nThese contradictions occurred across multiple accounts simultaneously. \n\nAutopay is an issuer-controlled risk mitigation system. When it fails without notice, penalizing the consumer constitutes unfair servicing. \n\n\n\nXXXX. Late Fees, Interest, and System Error Admission Late fees and interest were assessed after the autopay failure. \n\nOn XX/XX/year> : XXXX XXXX  Agent XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX admitted there was an internal application/system error. \n\nFollowing escalation : Late fees were retroactively waived within XXXX  days. \n\nThis waiver confirms issuer fault. \n\nHowever : No written audit was provided. \nNo written autopay status history was produced. \nNo system error documentation was issued. \nNo furnishing correction confirmation was provided. \n\nFee waiver without audit transparency does not cure furnishing or servicing violations. \n\n\n\nIV. Card Lock + Audit Refusal After the autopay failure, I placed card locks to prevent additional transactions. \n\nI requested written confirmation of : Card lock timestamps Any post-lock transactions Autopay enable/disable logs Internal servicing notes Furnishing decision records Capital One refused to provide a full audit or written documentation confirming lock integrity or reporting accuracy. \n\nIf transactions occurred while cards were locked, that implicates unauthorized processing risk. \n\nIf no transactions occurred, Capital One should be able to confirm that in writing. \n\nThey refused. \n\n\n\nV. Inconsistent Account States Across XXXX Accounts Screenshots during the relevant period show : Differing autopay status indicators across accounts Inconsistent past-due indicators Utilization distortions Conflicting internal account states This occurred simultaneously across XXXX accounts. \n\nThis is systemic instability, not isolated error. \n\nDespite admitting system error and waiving fees, Capital One : Maintained delinquency pressure Allowed utilization inflation Failed to confirm correction of furnishing Failed to confirm suppression of inaccurate reporting VI. Furnisher Duties FCRA Exposure Capital One is a credit furnisher under XXXX U.S.C. XXXX. \n\nOnce notified of : Autopay failure, Internal system error, Disputed account integrity, Audit request, Capital One had a duty to ensure : Maximum possible accuracy in furnishing Reasonable investigation of disputes Correction of inaccurate or unstable data Continuing to furnish delinquency or inflated utilization during known servicing instability violates furnisher accuracy obligations. \n\n\n\nXXXX. XXXX  Concerns This conduct constitutes : Unfair Penalizing the consumer during issuer-controlled system failure. \nUsing delinquency leverage without audit transparency. \n\nDeceptive Conflicting statements about autopay status. \nConflicting account-state explanations. \n\nAbusive Exploiting credit-reporting pressure while denying access to audit data necessary to verify the account. \n\n\n\nXXXX. Harm Financial : Late fees and interest assessed ( waived only after escalation ) Distorted balances during system failure Credit : Utilization inflation Past-due appearance Risk of derogatory furnishing Procedural : Loss of confidence in issuer-controlled safeguards Forced escalation Administrative burden across XXXX accounts Systemic : Simultaneous instability across multiple accounts suggests pattern-and-practice servicing weakness XXXX. Continued External Account Debiting After Dispute Notice In addition to the servicing failures described above, Capital One has continued initiating XXXX withdrawals from my external XXXX deposit account despite my active dispute of payment amounts and rate concerns. \n\nFacts : I disputed payment amounts due to high rates and account integrity concerns. \nDespite dispute notice, Capital One continued to initiate XXXX pulls from my XXXX account. \nThese debits occurred while : Autopay functionality was in question, System error had been admitted, Audit transparency had been refused, Account balances and fees were disputed. \n\nThis conduct raises additional compliance concerns. \n\n\n\nXXXX. Regulatory Concerns Raised by Continued ACH Pulls XXXX. Authorization Validity If payment terms, balances, or servicing logic are disputed, continued automated debiting raises questions about whether authorization remains valid under the circumstances. \nXXXX. Dispute Handling Integrity Once a creditor has notice that : The balance is disputed, The rates are contested, Servicing defects exist, Autopay status is unstable, continuing automated withdrawals without resolving the dispute XXXX constitute unfair or abusive conduct. \nXXXX. Regulation Z / Billing Error Context Under XXXX C.F.R. XXXX, creditors must properly handle billing disputes and can not use collection pressure mechanisms to override unresolved error claims. \nXXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX debits from a separate institution ( Santander ) while refusing to provide a full audit or furnishing confirmation creates leverage imbalance and procedural unfairness. \n\n\n\nXXXX. Systemic Pattern Capital One : Allowed autopay to fail, Admitted internal system error, Waived fees after escalation, Refused audit transparency, Maintained furnishing instability, AND continued external ACH pulls during active disputes. \n\nThis demonstrates a pattern of : Servicing instability Fee assessment Dispute Partial correction Continued automated extraction. \n\nThat is not compliant dispute handling. \n\n\n\nXXXX. Additional Harm Because Capital One continued pulling funds from XXXX : My external deposit stability was affected. \nBudgeting and account predictability were compromised. \nI was forced to monitor multiple institutions due to issuer servicing defects. \nRisk of overdraft exposure increased at the external bank. \n\nThis extends harm beyond XXXX XXXX  internal ledger.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-02-22T22:30:35.000Z","issue":"Fees or interest","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"02895","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"19693304","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","date_received":"2026-02-22T22:21:39.000Z","state":"RI","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Problem with fees"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>Risk</em> of overdraft exposure increased at the external bank. \n\nThis extends harm beyond XXXX XXXX  <em>internal</em> ledger."]},"sort":[25.505093,"19693304"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"15971000","_score":22.086855,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"Cash App ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) closed/disabled my account without explanation. I am XXXX XXXX, an independent candidate for XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ). This timing makes the closure appear politically motivated.\n\nUnder the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1693 et seq. ) and Regulation E ( 12 C.F.R. Part 1005 ), Cash App must investigate disputes, provide written results, and furnish documents relied upon. I demanded : ( 1 ) reopening or written legal justification, ( XXXX ) copies of investigative records, ( XXXX ) confirmation of fund status, and ( XXXX ) assurance of no negative reporting. \n\nCash App has not complied. I seek immediate reopening, full documentation, confirmation of fund status, and compensation for losses caused by the lockout. \n\n\n-- - Expanded Narrative ( if form allows more detail or as PDF attachment ) Who I am : My name is XXXX XXXX, an independent candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives ( Michigans 9th District ).\n\nWhat happened : Cash App ( Block, Inc. ) closed or disabled my account without providing any lawful or factual basis. I have repeatedly requested : Reopening or written legal justification citing policies/statutes ; Copies of all documents relied upon in the decision ( incident reports, flags, decision logs, internal notes ) ; Confirmation of the status of funds ; Written assurance of no adverse reporting. \n\n\nCash App has ignored these requests. The timing of this closure during my candidacy raises serious concerns of politically motivated de-platforming.\n\nWhy this is unlawful : Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1693 et seq. ) and Regulation E ( 12 C.F.R. Part 1005 ) require timely investigation of disputes, written notice of results, and access to documents relied upon. \n\nCash Apps own policies echo these requirements. \n\nBlocking financial services without lawful explanation constitutes an unfair and deceptive practice under consumer protection law. \n\n\nHarm suffered : Loss of access to financial services during an active federal campaign ; Lost opportunities and reputational harm ; Delays in lawful transactions.\n\nRelief sought : I request that CFPB compel Block, Inc. ( Cash App ) to : 1. Reopen/restore my account or provide a detailed written legal justification.\n\n2. Produce all documents used in its decision.\n\n3. Confirm the status of all funds and ensure no adverse reporting has occurred.\n\n4. Compensate me for losses directly caused by the account closure.\n\nDocument Production & Records 1. Produce complete EFTA/Regulation E compliance manuals in effect at the time of account closure. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide the written policies governing account freezes, including XXXX triggers. \n\n\nXXXX. Produce all Suspicious Activity Reports ( SARs ) filed referencing me or my transactions ( redacted if required ). \n\n\nXXXX. Provide transaction monitoring logs and algorithmic flagging criteria used in my case. \n\n\nXXXX. Produce copies of communications with any financial institution partners ( e.g., XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX  ) about my account. \n\n\nXXXX. Deliver a full XXXX XXXX of every employee who accessed my account records ( with timestamps, employee IDs, and actions taken ). \n\n\nXXXX. Provide internal chat transcripts, Slack threads, Teams logs regarding my account. \n\n\nXXXX. Identify all keywords or triggers in your automated compliance system that flagged my account. \n\n\nXXXX. Produce the decision tree or workflow chart showing how automated account suspensions are escalated to human review. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide copies of all training materials given to Cash App employees on how to handle disputes under Reg E.\n\nLegal & Regulatory 11. Cite the precise statutory authority that permits unilateral account termination absent consumer fraud. \nXXXX. Identify the jurisdiction and arbitration rules you believe govern disputes under your Terms of XXXX. \nXXXX. Provide the last 5 years of regulatory enforcement actions involving Cash App under XXXX XXXX. \nXXXX. List all regulators or government agencies notified about my account closure. \nXXXX. Confirm whether any XXXX requests, subpoenas, or grand jury subpoenas were received referencing me. \n16. Identify the compliance officer of record responsible for my accounts termination.\n\n17. Provide the name and bar number of the in-house counsel who reviewed or approved my closure. \nXXXX. State whether you notified the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau of my dispute ( as required by complaint reporting obligations ).\n\n19. Provide evidence of compliance with 15 U.S.C. 1693h ( Consumer Liability ) regarding provisional credit.\n\n20. Demonstrate compliance with 12 C.F.R. 1005.11 ( c ) ( error resolution procedures ). \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Provide my raw data export ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  ) from your backend databases. \nXXXX. Deliver a machine-readable copy of my account history, including hidden fields ( metadata, flags, internal tags ). \nXXXX. Produce all system-generated risk scores for my account. \nXXXX. Provide records of algorithm training data used for account-closure decisioning. \nXXXX. Identify whether AI or machine learning models were used in the decision, and produce their outputs. \nXXXX. List all third-party vendors with whom my account data was shared. \nXXXX. Provide the vendor contracts governing data access to my account. \nXXXX. State whether my account was included in any batch risk purges or automated sweeps. \nXXXX. Produce a copy of your data retention and destruction schedule. \nXXXX. Provide confirmation whether my data was replicated to offshore servers, and if so, in what jurisdictions.\n\nCommunications & Notices 31. Provide the exact wording of all notices allegedly sent to me about closure. \nXXXX. Prove the delivery method and timestamps of such notices ( mail logs, email headers ). \nXXXX. Identify any customer service scripts employees used when speaking about my account. \nXXXX. Produce all recordings/transcripts of calls between me and your support team. \nXXXX. Provide copies of consumer-facing policies in effect at the time of closure ( archived ToS and FAQs ). \nXXXX. Produce the consumer complaints log ( internal CFPB complaint matching ). \nXXXX. Provide internal escalation tickets with tags, priority codes, and XXXX compliance. \nXXXX. Confirm whether my name or account has been added to any external negative lists ( e.g., XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX \nXXXX. Provide any correspondence with social media companies regarding me, my name, or account. \nXXXX. Confirm whether you flagged my account as linked to political activity or election-related risk. \n\nAccountability & Remedies XXXX. Identify every employee involved in the closure decision, with job title and department. \nXXXX. Provide the disciplinary record of employees who mishandled XXXX XXXX disputes in the last 3 years. \nXXXX. Show evidence of your annual Reg XXXX training certification for staff. \nXXXX. Provide your internal XXXX XXXX audit reports for XXXX. \nXXXX. Identify whether my account has been used in any model training datasets after closure. \nXXXX. State whether you have insurance coverage ( XXXX & O, cyber liability ) that would apply to my claim for damages. \n\nI. Corporate Structure & Governance ( XXXX ) XXXX. Provide a current organizational chart of all departments touching compliance. \n\n\nXXXX. Produce the minutes of XXXX meetings where XXXX XXXX XXXX was discussed. \n\n\nXXXX. Identify your XXXX XXXX XXXX and provide rsum/credentials. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide a copy of your XXXX compliance plan. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide your XXXX XXXX XXXX and policies. \n\n\nXXXX. Identify your designated Reg XXXX XXXX. \n\n\nXXXX. Produce your XXXX compliance manual. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide all XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) risk assessments. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide the XXXX annual compliance certifications submitted to regulators. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide the job descriptions for every compliance XXXX. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide the whistleblower policy and hotline logs. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide your internal audit plan for consumer protection. \n\n\nXXXX. Produce a list of outside counsel advising on XXXX XXXX. \n\n\nXXXX. Identify all law firms retained for Cash App litigation XXXX. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide vendor XXXX XXXX minutes. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide your data governance charter. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide a copy of your risk appetite statement. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide your third-party oversight framework. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide your escalation matrix for compliance issues. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide all ethics certifications signed by employees in 2024. \n\nXXXX. Transactions & XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX. Provide a general ledger extract of my account activity. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide reconciliation logs showing how my account was balanced daily. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide chargeback records involving my account. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide ACH return codes linked to my account. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide network flags received from XXXX XXXX \n\n\nXXXX. Produce internal memos on dispute ratios. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide the settlement files sent to banking partners. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide XXXX audit results for XXXX. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide PCI DSS compliance reports. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide the ledger reversal policy. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide rejected transaction reports tied to my account. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide system downtime logs impacting my access. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide fraud loss reserve calculations. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide the basis for XXXX thresholds. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide currency transaction report ( CTR ) logs. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide escalation reports for suspicious transfers. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide batch file extracts to partner banks. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide internal fraud alerts assigned to my account. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide return item handling procedures. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide correspondent bank queries. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide wire transfer logs. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide pre-funding policies. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide settlement exposure memos. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide third-party acquirer correspondence. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide risk engine audit logs. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide duplicate transaction investigation reports. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide accounting policy memos. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide evidence of XXXX XXXX XXXX controls. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide bank reconciliation packages. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide matching of suspense accounts involving my funds. \n\nXXXX. XXXXechnology & Data ( 5190 ) 51. Provide system architecture diagrams for Cash App. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide the list of APIs connected to my account data. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide source code documentation for risk scoring models. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide QA test cases run before deploying compliance code. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide incident reports for outages affecting me. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide SOC XXXX audit reports. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide cloud hosting contracts. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide geolocation records tied to my logins. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide device fingerprinting logs. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide cookie/session token histories. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide IP address logs for my account. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide multi-factor authentication logs. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide data breach notifications submitted to regulators. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide cybersecurity incident response playbooks. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide XXXX CSF compliance attestations. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide XXXX XXXX certification records. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide XXXX test results ( XXXX ). \n\n\nXXXX. Provide bug bounty reports referencing my account. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide firewall access logs. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide SIEM alerts involving my activity. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide database snapshots of my account table. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide version history of my account record. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide access control lists for my data. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide data lineage documentation. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide data masking/redaction policies. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide encryption key rotation logs. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide SaaS vendor security audits. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide incident tickets raised by IT about my account. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide change management tickets for closure decision. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide rollback/restore capabilities for my account. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide GDPR compliance reports ( if XXXX data processed ). \n\n\nXXXX. Provide CCPA compliance certifications. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide audit logs showing data exports. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide all AI/ML vendor contracts. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide data ethics reviews of AI models. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide model validation reports. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide false positive rates for closure algorithms. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide data bias testing results. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide shadow model performance logs. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide explainability memos on AI closure logic. \n\nIV. XXXX XXXX & Complaints ( XXXX ) XXXX. Provide CFPB complaint response logs. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide FTC inquiry responses. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide XXXX XXXX XXXX complaint summaries. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide XXXX XXXX complaint logs. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide internal complaint resolution times. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide complaint trend analysis. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide heat maps of complaint types. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide monthly compliance dashboards. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide call center quality monitoring scores. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide support ticket lifecycle reports. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide average response times vs. SLA.\n\n102. Provide consumer disclosure templates.\n\n103. Provide adverse action notices.\n\n104. Provide UCC Article 4A compliance documents.\n\n105. Provide escalation memos for VIP or sensitive accounts. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide complaint severity scoring rules. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide ombudsman reports. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide repeat offender tracking logs. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide call deflection rates. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide training records for dispute resolution staff. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide scripts for responding to Reg XXXX claims. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide QA reports on complaint handling. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide consumer harm assessments. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide remediation plans for past violations. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide corrective action plans filed with regulators. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide refund policies for wrongful closures. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide copies of all restitution paid XXXX. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide mediation/arbitration cases involving Cash App. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide settlement agreements with consumers. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide tracking logs of escalations to executives. \n\nXXXX Risk & Oversight ( 121150 ) 121. Provide enterprise risk assessments XXXX. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide stress test results. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide capital adequacy memos for payment risk. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide anti-deplatforming risk analysis. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide political neutrality policy. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide lists of PEP ( politically exposed persons ) flagged. \n\n\nXXXX. Confirm if my name is on a PEP list. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide country risk matrices. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide scenario analyses for account closures. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide lessons-learned reports from wrongful closures. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide remediation plans filed after regulatory criticism. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide stress scenarios involving election candidates. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide XXXX dashboard reports. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide XXXX  framework compliance docs. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide XXXX XXXX compliance memos ( if applicable ). \n\n\nXXXX. Provide risk tolerance thresholds. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide annual risk committee minutes. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide internal audit findings on closure practices. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide regulatory exam reports from XXXX. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide risk-adjusted closure ratios. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide heat maps of political activity risk. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide country-by-country closure stats. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide customer impact statements. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide scenario testing memos for reputational harm. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide public relations risk analysis. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide reputational damage dashboards. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide compliance testing of closure appeals. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide escalation path for politically sensitive cases. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide XXXX certifications for closure legality. \n\n\nXXXX. XXXX XXXX attestations that closures follow law. \n\n\n\n\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX for Me! \n\n\nPaid For XXXX XXXX XXXX For XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-10-02T14:56:33.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Other banking product or service","zip_code":"480XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"15971000","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Block, Inc.","date_received":"2025-09-17T04:21:52.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Banking errors"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Provide XXXX  framework <em>compliance</em> docs. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide XXXX XXXX <em>compliance</em> memos ( if applicable ). \n\n\nXXXX. Provide <em>risk</em> tolerance thresholds. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide annual <em>risk</em> committee minutes. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide <em>internal</em> <em>audit</em> findings on closure practices. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide regulatory exam reports from XXXX. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide <em>risk</em>-adjusted closure ratios. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide heat maps of political activity <em>risk</em>. \n\n\nXXXX. Provide country-by-country closure stats. \n\n\nXXXX."]},"sort":[22.086855,"15971000"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17325758","_score":21.987852,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"NewRez XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX : Resulting Illegitimacy of NewRez and XXXX XXXX XXXX * * ( XXXX XXXX XXXX | Full statutory citations | XXXX ) Submitted by : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Mortgage XXXX XXXX XXXX NewRez LLC has XXXX XXXX XXXX regulators that XXXX XXXX XXXX is not associated with NewRez/Shellpoint. \nThis disavowal directly contradicts XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX filings Consolidated financial statements XXXX  certifications Beneficial XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX statements Under federal law, both sets of statements can not be true simultaneously. \n\nIf XXXX XXXX is taken as accurate, then : NewRez becomes an unparented, orphaned, non-consolidated servicer with no lawful controller, no XXXX pathway, no governance chain, and no oversight authority. \n\nAnd because Shellpoint functions as XXXX servicing division, Shellpoint would then be conducting servicing operations : * * Without a lawful controller Without a valid parent Without XXXX oversight Without governance Without required federal supervision Without legal authority under mortgage servicing law. * * This document details why this structure can not lawfully exist under federal statutes and the catastrophic implications. \n\n\n\nXXXX. Federal Law Requires a Servicer to Have a Parent, Controller, and Governance Chain XXXX Requirements Under RESPA & Regulation X 12 U.S.C. 2605 and 12 C.F.R. 1024.38 require : a designated entity responsible for servicing operations a governance framework oversight authority supervisory controls error resolution systems internal compliance infrastructure If NewRez has no parent, then : No entity exists to fulfill these federal requirements. \n\nA servicer can not lawfully operate in this vacuum. \n\n\n\nXXXX. Servicers Can not Operate Without a XXXXCertified XXXX XXXXXXXX, as parent, signs : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX internal control attestations risk and oversight committee approvals consolidated MSR valuations If NewRez XXXX XXXXXXXX, then : No XXXX exists who can legally sign XXXX certifications for : XXXX valuations internal controls consolidated reporting risk oversight servicing liabilities A company without XXXX pathway can not service mortgages. \n\n( Cited : XXXX XXXX of XXXX ; 15 U.S.C. 7241, 7262 ) Shellpoint relies entirely on these certifications. \n\nIf the parent chain collapses, Shellpoint loses legal oversight. \n\n\n\nXXXX. XXXX XXXXXXXX, & Consolidation Rules Require a Valid Controller Under SEC Rule XXXX, XXXX C.F.R. 240.12b-20, and XXXX Auditing XXXX XXXX : A consolidated servicer ( NewRez/Shellpoint ) : must have a parent must have a controller with authority must maintain unified internal controls must maintain validated governance lineage If XXXX does not own NewRez : consolidation is fraudulent audits are invalid MSR valuations are unreliable internal controls collapse Shellpoint can not lawfully service loans under an invalid consolidation structure. \n\n\n\nXXXX. CFPB Supervision Manual : Servicers Can not Operate as Orphan Entities XXXX Mortgage Servicing Examination Manual ( 2023 edition ) requires servicers to have : a parent entity with supervisory authority effective board oversight documented governance structure auditable control systems clearly established accountability If NewRez XXXX XXXXXXXX : Shellpoint becomes a free-floating servicer operating with no lawful governance, in direct violation of CFPB supervision standards. \n\n\n\nXXXX. VA Loan Rules Require a Parent-Level Controller to Maintain Compliance For VA-backed loans XXXX 38 U.S.C. 3720 & VA Servicer Handbook XXXX. XXXX require : accurate accounting systems validated governance parent-level controls auditable supervision oversight by a financially responsible controlling entity Without a parent entity : Shellpoint can not meet VA loan servicing requirements.\n\nEvery VA loan on the platform becomes tainted. \n\n\n\nXXXX. If NewRez XXXX XXXX, XXXX Entire Servicing Operation Becomes Structurally Invalid Because Shellpoint is the functional servicing arm of NewRez : If NewRez is orphaned, then Shellpoint is : orphaned unparented unsupervised non-certifiable without required XXXX authority without SEC consolidation without CFPB-required governance without VA servicing authority without internal control lineage Under federal doctrine, this becomes : An unsupervised servicer a structure that is not permitted under XXXX mortgage XXXX. \n\n\n\nXXXX. Enforcement Consequences ( CFPB, SEC, FTC, VA, XXXX XXXX ) If XXXX XXXX is taken at face value, regulators must treat Shellpoint as : operating outside required governance frameworks servicing loans without legal authorization conducting consumer financial services without mandated oversight in violation of federal lending laws presenting systemic risk to borrowers, veterans, and mortgage markets This is grounds for : CFPB XXXX actions ( 12 U.S.C. 5531 ) SEC investigation into consolidation fraud FTC unfair practices enforcement VA loan program revocation State AG wide-scale consumer protection actions Closing Statement By stating XXXX is not associated with NewRez/Shellpoint, NewRez has XXXX a XXXX contradiction that collapses its own legal foundation and renders Shellpoints servicing operations incapable of meeting federal servicing, XXXX, XXXX, VA, CFPB, and state governance requirements. \n\nA servicer without a parent is not a servicer it is an unregulated financial risk operating outside the law. \n\nAnd Shellpoint, as the operating arm, inherits that illegitimacy.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-18T20:49:52.000Z","issue":"Trouble during payment process","sub_product":"VA mortgage","zip_code":"37066","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17325758","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Shellpoint Partners, LLC","date_received":"2025-11-18T20:43:37.000Z","state":"TN","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Payment process"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["VA Loan Rules Require a Parent-Level Controller to Maintain <em>Compliance</em> For VA-backed loans XXXX 38 U.S.C. 3720 & VA Servicer Handbook XXXX. XXXX require : accurate accounting <em>systems</em> validated governance parent-level controls <em>auditable</em> supervision oversight by a financially responsible controlling entity Without a parent entity : Shellpoint can not meet VA loan servicing requirements.\n\nEvery VA loan on the platform becomes tainted. \n\n\n\nXXXX."]},"sort":[21.987852,"17325758"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17170480","_score":20.085863,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"Legal Hold Notice PRESERVE EVIDENCE Date : XX/XX/XXXX To : General Counsel, NewRez LLC ( d/b/a Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing ) XXXX ( or official GC address ) Chief Legal Officer, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( or official GC address ) Chief Risk Officer, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( or official address ) Audit Committee Chair, XXXX XXXX XXXX [ name/address ] Cc : Outside Counsel ( XXXX XXXX or listed counsel ) , Compliance Department, IT/Infrastructure, Records Custodians Re : LEGAL HOLD NOTICE Preservation of Documents, ESI, Call Recordings, and Metadata Relating to Loan No. [ XXXX ] and All Related Complaints, CFPB Filings, and Regulatory Inquiries 1. Purpose This Legal Hold Notice requires immediate preservation of all documents and electronically stored information ( ESI ) that are or may be relevant to potential litigation, regulatory enforcement, or government investigation concerning NewRez LLC ( d/b/a Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing ), its servicing of Loan No. [ XXXX ], and related issues that have been the subject of CFPB/TDFI and other regulatory complaints. Actual or reasonably anticipated litigation or regulatory inquiry exists ; preservation is mandatory. \n\n2. Legal Basis Preservation is required under federal and state law, including but not limited to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 and 37 ( e ), 18 U.S.C. 1519 ( criminal sanctions for destruction/alteration of records ), and applicable regulatory preservation obligations enforced by the CFPB, SEC, and state financial regulators. Failure to preserve relevant records may result in sanctions, adverse-inference findings, referral to enforcement authorities, and criminal exposure. \n\n3. Immediately Preserve ( Scope ) Preserve all relevant materials whether in active systems, archived storage, backups, shadow copies, XXXX services, mobile devices, chat systems, voicemail, or third-party vendor platforms including but not limited to : Account & Transaction Records Complete transaction histories, integrated servicing ledgers, suspense/unapplied payment records, escrow histories, payment posting logs, and all versions of account statements for Loan No. [ XXXX ] ( from XX/XX/XXXX to present ). \n\nCall & Voice Records All inbound/outbound call recordings, call metadata, transcripts, IVR logs , and quality-assurance notes that reference the loan, the borrower ( XXXX XXXX ), or CFPB complaint IDs. \n\nCommunications All emails, text messages, XXXX messages, internal tickets, and correspondence ( including attachments ) referencing the borrower, loan number, CFPB complaints, TDFI/other regulator contacts, or any of the attached exhibits. \n\nSystem & Audit Logs Database logs, audit trails, XXXX  submission logs, XXXX node edits, reconciliation reports, database modification timestamps, user IDs responsible for edits, hashes, backups, and any change/delete events. \n\nVendor & Third-Party Records Records held by vendors ( call-recording providers, MSP platform providers, XXXX hosts, backup vendors, auditors ) concerning the loan or related complaints. \n\nCompliance & Legal Files All internal compliance reviews, investigation notes, escalation memos, Board materials, committee minutes, legal-department memos , regulatory correspondence ( drafts and final ), and any communications with outside counsel regarding these matters. \n\n4. Custodians Preserve all materials from the following custodians ( including but not limited to ) : XXXX XXXX ( CEO ) XXXX XXXX ( CFO/CAO ) XXXX XXXX ( Chief Legal Officer ) XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Head of Risk ) Compliance, Customer Care , Collections, Servicing Ops, IT, Audit, Investor Relations, and any named employees or agents that have handled Loan No. [ XXXX ] or related CFPB submissions. \n\n5. Suspension of Deletion / Alteration You are instructed to suspend any automatic deletion, overwriting, rolling-off, patching, purging, or other alteration of relevant data in live systems, backups, archives, and third-party platforms until further written notice. This includes disabling any auto-archival or data-retention jobs that could modify timestamps, hashes, or content. \n\n6. Confirmation & Certification Within seven ( 7 ) business days of receipt of this Notice, please confirm in response to the complaint through CFPB portal. \na ) The legal hold has been implemented ; b ) The list of named custodians and systems is being preserved ; and c ) The company has taken steps to suspend any scheduled deletions or overwrites. \n\nProvide the name and contact information of the person ( s ) responsible for the preservation in each business unit ( Legal, IT, Compliance ). If you decline to implement preservation, identify with specificity the categories you refuse and explain the legal basis. \n\n7. Consequences of Non-Compliance Please be advised that any deletion, alteration, or failure to preserve relevant documents or ESI after receipt of this Notice may constitute spoliation and subject the company and responsible individuals to remedies including : court sanctions, adverse-inference instructions, monetary sanctions, referral to regulatory or criminal authorities ( including CFPB, SEC, DOJ ) , and use of spoliation as evidence of consciousness of guilt. \n\n8. Production / Next Steps This Notice does not waive any rights. If counsel is retained by the company or if you have outside counsel already handling these matters, please provide counsels contact information. I ( and/or my counsel ) will be requesting formal production of preserved materials and a written preservation certification as the matter proceeds.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-11T16:33:21.000Z","issue":"Trouble during payment process","sub_product":"VA mortgage","zip_code":"37066","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17170480","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Shellpoint Partners, LLC","date_received":"2025-11-11T16:23:46.000Z","state":"TN","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Payment process"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Communications All emails, text messages, XXXX messages, <em>internal</em> tickets, and correspondence ( including attachments ) referencing the borrower, loan number, CFPB complaints, TDFI/other regulator contacts, or any of the attached exhibits. \n\n<em>System</em> & <em>Audit</em> Logs Database logs, <em>audit</em> trails, XXXX  submission logs, XXXX node edits, reconciliation reports, database modification timestamps, user IDs responsible for edits, hashes, backups, and any change/delete events."]},"sort":[20.085863,"17170480"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"9761407","_score":19.553541,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"I am asking for the following information to be provided within the next 30 days. \n\nXXXX. Please provide evidence of all records, documents, and communications related to the handling, storage, and processing of my personal data. \nXXXX. Please identify and disclose all third parties who have had access to my personal information, including the nature and purpose of such access. \nXXXX. Please provide a comprehensive log of all instances of access to, and modifications of, my personal records. \nXXXX. Please submit all contracts, agreements, and related documents governing the handling or sharing of your personal data with third parties. \nXXXX. Please disclose all internal policies, procedures, and protocols concerning the protection and confidentiality of your personal data. \nXXXX. Please provide evidence of any training programs and materials provided to employees regarding data privacy and security. \nXXXX. Please produce all correspondence and documentation related to any data breaches or security incidents involving your personal data. \nXXXX. Please provide detailed documentation regarding the security measures and safeguards implemented to protect my personal data. \nXXXX. Please disclose all reports, audits, or assessments conducted related to data privacy and security practices. \nXXXX. Please provide records of any practices, procedures, or instances of data sharing or disclosure involving my personal data. \nXXXX. Please submit all analyses, reports, or documentation concerning the potential exposure or compromise of my personal data. \nXXXX. Please disclose all records of data access requests made by external entities related to my personal data. \nXXXX. Please provide documentation of any internal investigations or inquiries into potential privacy violations involving your data. \nXXXX. Please produce evidence of compliance with legal and regulatory requirements related to data privacy and protection. \nXXXX. Please disclose all communications and correspondence with regulatory bodies concerning data privacy matters related to your personal information. \nXXXX. Please provide evidence of any data anonymization or pseudonymization practices applied to my personal data. \nXXXX. Please disclose all records of consent obtained from you regarding the use or sharing of my personal data. \nXXXX. Please provide documentation of any transfers of your personal data outside the organization, including the recipients and purpose of such transfers. \nXXXX. Please submit logs of any system alerts, security incidents, or breaches related to the access or exposure of my personal data. \nXXXX. Please provide evidence of risk mitigation measures and actions taken to prevent unauthorized access or exposure of my personal data. \nXXXX. Please disclose any records of complaints or concerns raised by or about me concerning data privacy issues. \nXXXX. Please provide documentation related to encryption or other data protection technologies used to safeguard my personal data. \nXXXX. Please disclose any instances or evidence of unauthorized access to my personal data. \nXXXX. Please produce records regarding data retention and destruction policies and practices related to my personal data. \nXXXX. Please provide documentation of risk assessments and evaluations conducted related to the security and privacy of my personal data. \nXXXX. Please disclose any modifications or updates to internal policies or procedures affecting the handling and protection of my personal data. \nXXXX. Please provide documentation of any partnerships, affiliations, or relationships that may impact the privacy or security of my personal data. \nXXXX. Please disclose evidence of compliance with applicable privacy regulations, laws, and standards relevant to the protection of my personal data. \nXXXX. Please provide documentation related to any privacy impact assessments conducted concerning your personal data. \nXXXX. Please submit all reports, findings, or outcomes from external audits or reviews concerning data privacy and security practices related to your personal information. \n\nPlease provide evidence of training or guidelines provided to your affiliates on the prohibition of accessing or using my transactions and experiences. \n\nPlease submit logs or records of any attempts by your affiliates to access my transactions and experiences. \n\nPlease provide documentation of any compliance checks conducted to ensure that your affiliates did not access or use my transactions and experiences. \n\nPlease disclose any security measures specifically designed to prevent your affiliates from accessing or using my transactions and experiences. \n\nPlease provide any risk assessments or evaluations related to the protection of my transactions and experiences from unauthorized access by your affiliates. \n\nPlease submit records of any notifications or alerts regarding unauthorized access or use of my transactions and experiences by your affiliates. \n\nPlease provide evidence of the implementation of data access controls that prevent your affiliates from accessing my transactions and experiences. \n\nPlease disclose any reports or findings from external audits concerning your affiliates ' access to or use of my transactions and experiences. \n\nPlease provide documentation of any agreements or understandings with your affiliates related to the non-access or non-use of my transactions and experiences. \nPlease provide records of any legal or regulatory compliance related to the prevention of unauthorized access to my transactions and experiences by your affiliates. \n\nPlease disclose any communication or correspondence with third parties regarding the access or use of my transactions and experiences by your affiliates. \n\nPlease provide documentation related to any privacy impact assessments performed to ensure that your affiliates did not access or use my transactions and experiences. \n\nPlease disclose any instances where your affiliates were found to have improperly accessed or used my transactions and experiences, if any. \n\nPlease provide evidence of compliance with internal policies and procedures to prevent unauthorized access to my transactions and experiences by your affiliates. \n\nPlease disclose any procedures for monitoring or auditing your affiliates ' access to and use of personal transactions and experiences. \n\nPlease provide any documentation related to the review of your affiliates ' compliance with data protection requirements concerning my transactions and experiences. \n\nPlease submit any records or documentation related to actions taken to address any unauthorized access or use of my transactions and experiences by your affiliates. \n\nPlease disclose any corrective actions or measures implemented to prevent future access or use of my transactions and experiences by your affiliates. \n\nPlease provide evidence of the segregation of duties and responsibilities to ensure that your affiliates do not access or use my transactions and experiences. \n\nPlease submit any reports or findings that demonstrate the effectiveness of controls and safeguards in preventing your affiliates from accessing or using my transactions and experiences.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-08-09T18:13:51.000Z","issue":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","sub_product":"Credit card debt","zip_code":"08742","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"9761407","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"ZWICKER & ASSOCIATES","date_received":"2024-08-09T17:38:05.000Z","state":"NJ","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Debt is not yours"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Please provide evidence of <em>compliance</em> with <em>internal</em> policies and procedures to prevent unauthorized access to my transactions and experiences by your affiliates. \n\nPlease disclose any procedures for monitoring or <em>auditing</em> your affiliates ' access to and use of personal transactions and experiences. \n\nPlease provide any documentation related to the review of your affiliates ' <em>compliance</em> with data protection requirements concerning my transactions and experiences."]},"sort":[19.553541,"9761407"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14219411","_score":18.486492,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I demand the immediate and unredacted release of my complete consumer file, in full compliance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act XXXX. This includes, without limitation : all access logs ; inquiry records ; suppression indicators ; risk or behavioral scoring metrics ; adverse employment-related flags such as do not rehire ; system-generated watchlist or exclusion codes ; all XXXX ; source attribution ; and all data shared with, or received from, affiliated or XXXX-party consumer reporting agencies, including XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX. I also demand disclosure of any internal assessments, behavioral indicators, profile segmentations, or analytic models used to evaluate me in any employment, insurance, or reputational context. \n\nLexisNexis Risk Solutions falsely asserted that I could not be authenticated, despite receiving my valid state-issued identification, signed written request, and all required personal identifiers as defined under federal law. This assertion was factually false and procedurally indefensible. They then imposed an extralegal burden, demanding a utility bill, despite the clear standard under FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ), which requires only proper identification such as a state-issued ID. This is not a misunderstanding ; it is an intentional act of concealment and procedural gatekeeping designed to subvert consumer access through manufactured delay. \n\nTheir behavior constitutes willful obstruction under federal law. The evolving excuses, beginning with a vague boilerplate reply on XX/XX/XXXX, followed by a fraudulent rejection on XX/XX/XXXX, then a sanitized partial disclosure on XX/XX/XXXX, paint a pattern of bad faith. These are not clerical errors ; they are strategic. They have not only failed to comply with a lawful request, they have erected unlawful barriers designed to chill further pursuit. This is a direct violation of both the letter and intent of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. \n\nI also raise the concern of spoliation. Given the extended delay between my initial request on XX/XX/year>, and LexisNexis Risk Solutions eventual delivery of a limited, sanitized file on XX/XX/XXXX, there exists a reasonable suspicion that information may have been altered, withheld, or destroyed during that window. This risk is amplified by their shifting explanations, their refusal to comply under FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ), and their production of a document lacking audit logs, metadata, and internal system flagsall of which are required components under XXXX. Their conduct raises a legitimate question as to whether my consumer file was manipulated, tampered with, or retroactively scrubbed in anticipation of regulatory review. \n\nFurthermore, I have reason to believe LexisNexis Risk Solutions may be operating in coordination with other consumer reporting entities, including XXXX  ( via XXXX XXXX XXXX ), and possibly under the influence or at the direction of The XXXX XXXX, who may have a vested interest in the suppression or concealment of derogatory employment-related codes. The timing, content, and procedural irregularities in LexisNexiss response pattern suggest more than mere negligence ; they suggest a coordinated effort to limit transparency and shield third parties from accountability. \n\nI therefore demand a full investigative review of all access to my file between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, including the names of any parties who viewed, altered, or influenced its content. I request the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau determine whether any coordination or shared policy exists between LexisNexis Risk Solutions, XXXX, or The XXXX XXXX that would compromise the independence, accuracy, or integrity of consumer file disclosures under federal law. \n\nIf any tampering, backchannel coordination, or improper redactions occurred, I reserve the right to pursue spoliation sanctions, civil penalties, and full damages under XXXX for willful violations and XXXX for negligent violations. The longer they delay, the deeper the paper trail I build. The deeper the paper trail, the heavier the consequences. \n\nI am not requesting courtesy ; I am invoking my statutory rights. I am not seeking resolution through appeasement ; I am demanding accountability through exposure. I followed the law. LexisNexis did not. And if this agency fails to compel compliance, I will pursue every legal, public, and financial recourse available to ensure this misconduct is documented, prosecuted, and prevented from harming others. I do not bluff. I do not beg. I move forward.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-06-22T15:46:37.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing issue","sub_product":"Other personal consumer report","zip_code":"631XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14219411","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"LEXISNEXIS","date_received":"2025-06-22T15:22:17.000Z","state":"MO","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Difficulty submitting a dispute or getting information about a dispute over the phone"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This <em>risk</em> is amplified by their shifting explanations, their refusal to comply under FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ), and their production of a document lacking <em>audit</em> logs, metadata, and <em>internal</em> <em>system</em> flagsall of which are required components under XXXX. Their conduct raises a legitimate question as to whether my consumer file was manipulated, tampered with, or retroactively scrubbed in anticipation of regulatory review."]},"sort":[18.486492,"14219411"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17504922","_score":18.339945,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"CFPB COMPLAINT : PAYPAL ( Unauthorized Transaction Source and Compliance Failure ) Target Product : Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service Target Complaint Category : Fraud or other suspicious activity Issue : Unauthorized funds transfer Transaction Date : XX/XX/2025 Amount : {$39.00} Transaction Descriptor : XXXX Transfer from XXXX XXXX Co. \nYour Complaint Text ( Copy/Paste this description for the CFPB submission ) : On XX/XX/2025, an unauthorized DEPOSIT of {$39.00} was sent to my bank account with Bank of XXXX XXXX XXXX ). The transfer descriptor, originating from PayPal, used the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, which is the precise name associated with me, XXXX XXXX XXXX I did not initiate this DEPOSIT, and the use of my associated name suggests potential fraud and unauthorized use of my identity within the PayPal system to create the sending account. \nRefusal of Trace/Information : I contacted PayPal to XXXX the origin of this specific XXXX transfer, including the sending account details, the identity of the sender, or a trace ID. \nCompliance Failure : PayPal explicitly stated they could not or would not provide any tracing information or confirmation of the sender 's identity, effectively blocking the victim 's ability to investigate the potential identity theft event that occurred on their platform. \nSystemic Risk : This refusal demonstrates a critical compliance failure, as PayPal is facilitating suspicious transactions that use identity-linked descriptors and then refusing to cooperate with the victim to secure the transaction data required to stop the identity abuse. \nDesired Resolution : PayPal must immediately investigate and provide all internal data, including the source account, trace number, and confirmation of what identity documentation ( KYC ) was used to set up the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX account that generated this unauthorized transfer. Given PayPal 's refusal to provide necessary data to victims, I demand the CFPB initiate a comprehensive audit of PayPal 's compliance with KYC requirements and data security, resulting in mandatory civil penalties and structural changes to facilitate class-wide recovery for all affected consumers.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-26T05:13:48.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Domestic (US) money transfer","zip_code":"30143","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17504922","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Paypal Holdings, Inc","date_received":"2025-11-26T05:05:46.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Systemic <em>Risk</em> : This refusal demonstrates a critical <em>compliance</em> failure, as PayPal is facilitating suspicious transactions that use identity-linked descriptors and then refusing to cooperate with the victim to secure the transaction data required to stop the identity abuse."]},"sort":[18.339945,"17504922"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18817328","_score":18.154724,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"This complaint concerns systemic failure of Cash Apps dispute-handling systems and obstruction of federal consumer rights, not an isolated customer-service issue. \n\n\nI am filing this complaint to report systemic misconduct by Block , Inc. ( Cash App ) involving obstruction of consumer dispute rights, retaliatory account closure, and failure to comply with federal electronic funds transfer protections. \n\nOver an extended period, I experienced multiple unauthorized and erroneous transactions on my Cash App account. I exercised my legal right to dispute these transactions through Cash Apps in-app dispute system. \n\nInstead of processing these disputes in compliance with Regulation E, Cash App engaged in a pattern of conduct that resulted in the suppression of disputes, misclassification of outcomes, and eventual termination of my account. \n\nAfter I filed multiple lawful disputes, Cash App flagged my activity as potentially fraudulent and closed my account for alleged failure to verify identity, despite my long-standing verified account status. The closure occurred shortly after repeated dispute activity and had the direct effect of permanently blocking my ability to file additional disputes. \n\nThis created a closed-loop system : Dispute activity Internal risk flag Account closure Permanent loss of dispute access As a result, I am now permanently prevented from disputing additional unauthorized or erroneous transactions. \n\n\n\n\nKey Systemic Failures XXXX. Disputes Were Never Properly Logged Numerous disputes I submitted through the Cash App system were never captured in my account history at all. These transactions were eligible for dispute at the time, yet no record exists that they were ever processed. \n\nThis indicates a dispute intake failure the system itself prevented lawful disputes from being recorded. \n\nThis violates the requirement that financial institutions accept and investigate error notices. \n\n\n\n\nXXXX. Improper Dispute Handling For disputes that were recorded, Cash App produced inconsistent and misleading outcomes, including : Disputes labeled denied even when refunds were issued Temporary credits later recharacterized Disputes closed for identity reasons instead of transaction merits This distorts internal fraud metrics by misclassifying legitimate consumer disputes as abuse. \n\n\n\n\nXXXX. Retaliatory Account Closure Cash App closed my account for suspected fraud activity. The only relevant activity was repeated lawful dispute submissions. \n\nClosing an account in response to protected dispute activity constitutes retaliation and interferes with statutory consumer rights under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act. \n\n\n\n\nXXXX. Permanent Obstruction of Future Disputes Once my account was closed, I lost all access to Cash Apps dispute system. This means : New unauthorized transactions can not be disputed Prior unresolved transactions can not be re-submitted Cash App is using account termination as a mechanism to eliminate its legal obligation to investigate disputes. \n\n\nThese failures operate together to reduce refund liability and suppress dispute volume. \n\n\n\n\nLaws and Protections Implicated This conduct appears to violate : Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1693 ) Regulation E dispute resolution requirements Prohibitions against Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts or Practices ( UDAAP ) A financial institution may not block consumer error-resolution rights through account closure. \n\n\n\n\nHarm to Consumer Because of Cash Apps conduct : I remain financially liable for disputed transactions I am permanently blocked from accessing statutory dispute protections My account was closed in retaliation for protected activity This has caused financial harm and denial of federally guaranteed consumer rights. \n\n\n\n\nWhat I Want the Company to Do I request that Cash App be required to : Restore my access to the dispute system or provide a manual dispute channel Accept and investigate all previously suppressed disputes Correct internal records that misclassify resolved disputes as denials Provide a full accounting of all disputes submitted but never logged Cease retaliatory account closures tied to dispute activity What I Want the CFPB to Do I request that the CFPB : Open a supervisory investigation into Cash Apps dispute-handling systems Audit dispute intake logs versus consumer submissions Examine retaliatory account closures linked to dispute volume Require corrective compliance controls and consumer remediation Why This Is a Systemic Issue This is not a customer-service error. It reflects a defective compliance system with XXXX integrated failures :","date_sent_to_company":"2026-01-18T20:21:15.000Z","issue":"Unauthorized transactions or other transaction problem","sub_product":"Mobile or digital wallet","zip_code":"90029","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18817328","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Block, Inc.","date_received":"2026-01-18T20:07:13.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["It reflects a defective <em>compliance</em> <em>system</em> with XXXX integrated failures :"]},"sort":[18.154724,"18817328"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18139106","_score":17.813837,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"To the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, I am submitting this formal complaint regarding widespread and unauthorized access to my consumer reporting information through XXXX  and XXXX by multiple financial institutions, in direct violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and the California Consumer Financial Protection Act ( CFRA ). \n\nI did NOT initiate, authorize, or consent to any consumer application, account review, or transaction with the following institutions, yet they accessed my consumer report regardless : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( including access on behalf of third parties ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( where no consumer-initiated purpose exists ) These entities accessed my consumer report without a consumer-initiated transaction, without written authorization, and without a lawful permissible purpose, in violation of FCRA 604 ( a ). Their actions further demonstrate failure to maintain reasonable procedures to ensure compliance, as required by FCRA 607. \n\nFor clarity and to avoid misrepresentation, ONLY the following institutions had permissible purpose and are expressly excluded from this dispute : XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX All other inquiries are impermissible, unauthorized, and unlawful. \n\n-- - XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX FAILURE TO VERIFY & ESCALATION Despite numerous documented, good-faith attempts to obtain verification and confirmation of permissible purpose from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX has failed and refused to substantiate its inquiry or provide proof of consumer authorization. \n\nXXXX has been afforded multiple opportunities to cure this violation and comply with statutory verification requirements. Its continued non-response and non-compliance demonstrate disregard for obligations imposed under FCRA 604 and 607.\n\nAs a result of this failure to verify after repeated attempts, I am now taking formal steps to have the court system address this matter, as regulatory remedies have been exhausted without resolution. \n\n-- - ONGOING HARM & SYSTEMIC NON-COMPLIANCE The continued reporting of these unauthorized inquiries has caused material harm, including elevated denial risk, increased underwriting scrutiny, and interference with lawful banking relationships. The presence of duplicate inquiries, particularly by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, further evidences reckless or willful non-compliance. \n\nThis pattern raises serious concerns regarding systemic misuse of consumer reporting systems and inadequate internal controls governing permissible-purpose access. \n\n-- - REQUESTED CFPB ACTION I respectfully request that the CFPB take the following actions : XXXX. Require immediate deletion of all unauthorized inquiries listed above XXXX. Compel each reporting institution to produce documented proof of permissible purpose XXXX. Investigate systemic misuse of XXXX  and XXXX access XXXX. Require corrective compliance and internal audit measures XXXX. Provide written confirmation of resolution This complaint is submitted in good faith. However, absent prompt correction, I reserve all rights to pursue statutory remedies for negligent and willful non-compliance under FCRA 616617, CFRA, and applicable state law. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX ID : XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-12-18T13:03:49.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"08618","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18139106","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Early Warning Services, LLC","date_received":"2025-12-18T13:03:24.000Z","state":"NJ","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Information belongs to someone else"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Require corrective <em>compliance</em> and <em>internal</em> <em>audit</em> measures XXXX. Provide written confirmation of resolution This complaint is submitted in good faith. However, absent prompt correction, I reserve all rights to pursue statutory remedies for negligent and willful non-<em>compliance</em> under FCRA 616617, CFRA, and applicable state law. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX ID : XXXX"]},"sort":[17.813837,"18139106"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18492576","_score":16.714115,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"A revolving credit card account was opened on XX/XX/XXXX and is being reported as derogatory / charged off with a reported balance of {$840.00} and a reported credit limit of {$500.00}. \n\nThe account reflects a last payment date of XX/XX/XXXX and a last active date of XX/XX/XXXX, yet it is reported as charged off as bad debt, with no monthly payment, no terms, and a last reported date of XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nThe reporting contains material inaccuracies and internal inconsistencies, including but not limited to : Reporting a revolving credit card with $ 0 monthly payment and no terms Reporting a past due amount equal to the full balance ( {$840.00} ) without disclosing the exact charge-off date Reporting a balance exceeding the original credit limit without lawful explanation or documentation Failing to disclose how interest, fees, or charges were calculated post-default Continuing derogatory reporting without providing legally required supporting documentation After reviewing my credit report, I disputed the accuracy, completeness, and legal reporting of this account. Despite this, the company continued to report the tradeline without providing original or verifiable evidence to substantiate the charge-off. \n\nThe company failed to produce : The original signed cardmember agreement Complete monthly billing statements supporting the {$840.00} balance The exact date and accounting method of charge-off Payment allocation records Interest and fee calculation methodology Proof of authorization to report post charge-off Chain of custody and ownership of the account Audit trail of the investigation System records, timestamps, IP logs, or human verification evidence Identification and credentials of the individual who verified the account Any claimed verification appears to rely on automated or superficial processes, which do not satisfy the requirement for a reasonable reinvestigation. \n\nBy continuing to report this account without competent and verifiable evidence, the company is publishing inaccurate and unverifiable information, causing ongoing consumer harm, including credit score suppression and misrepresentation of credit risk. \n\nI am requesting regulatory intervention to require the immediate deletion of this account, or alternatively full correction supported by original documentary evidence, and to ensure compliance with federal credit reporting law.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-01-06T10:19:14.000Z","issue":"False statements or representation","sub_product":"Credit card debt","zip_code":"19149","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18492576","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2026-01-06T10:02:33.000Z","state":"PA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Told you not to respond to a lawsuit they filed against you"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["By continuing to report this account without competent and verifiable evidence, the company is publishing inaccurate and unverifiable information, causing ongoing consumer harm, including credit score suppression and misrepresentation of credit <em>risk</em>. \n\nI am requesting regulatory intervention to require the immediate deletion of this account, or alternatively full correction supported by original documentary evidence, and to ensure <em>compliance</em> with federal credit reporting law."]},"sort":[16.714115,"18492576"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17348215","_score":16.157803,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"IMMINENT HARM NewRez LLC d/b/a Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing Attn : General Counsel / Litigation Department XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, SC XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX \nAttn : General Counsel / Chief Legal Officer Re : Renewed Litigation Hold & Preservation of Evidence Notice Loan No. : XXXX | Property : XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, TN XXXX Borrower : XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX P & T XXXX Veteran, VA Loan ) To Counsel and Compliance : This letter serves as a renewed, expanded, and formal LITIGATION HOLD / PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE NOTICE. \n\nIt is being issued because you improperly closed a prior RESPA Notice of Error and related disputes as duplicate without providing the investigation, written findings, or corrections required by law, and despite your actual knowledge that the account is in active dispute, that regulatory complaints are pending, and that litigation and enforcement are reasonably anticipated. \n\nYour decision to treat a lawful error notice and legal hold as duplicate is evidence of willful disregard of your preservation obligations and will be presented as such to courts and regulators. \n\n\n\nI. Background : Prior Legal Hold & RESPA Notice Ignored XXXX. I previously issued a RESPA Notice of Error under 12 C.F.R. 1024.35 and explicitly placed you on notice that : the loan ledger is corrupted ; unapplied funds were used to manufacture delinquency ; a false XX/XX/XXXX default / pre-foreclosure notice was issued ; call recordings contain admissions that only {$750.00} was due while you held {$12000.00} in unapplied ; and a complaint and investigation were pending with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) and the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. \nXXXX. I also made clear that litigation and enforcement were reasonably anticipated and that all relevant evidence must be preserved. \nXXXX. Rather than comply, you : caused at least XXXX RESPA Notice of Error to be closed as duplicate ; failed to provide a compliant written response under 12 C.F.R. 1024.35 ( e ) ; and continued using corrupted data to threaten foreclosure and assess fees. \n\nThis conduct signals a conscious attempt to dodge legal and regulatory obligations, not a good-faith response to a borrower error notice. \n\nFor avoidance of doubt : this letter renews and broadens the litigation hold. \n\n\n\nXXXX. Duty to Preserve Litigation & Enforcement Are Reasonably Anticipated There is no question that you are on notice of potential litigation and regulatory action. Among other things : Multiple RESPA Notices of Error and RFIs have been submitted. \nNumerous CFPB complaints have been filed, including but not limited to XXXX and related complaint numbers. \nXXXX has opened a complaint and received your XX/XX/XXXX response letter regarding my loan. \nThe loan involves a XXXX mortgage to a 100 % permanent & total XXXX veteran facing wrongful foreclosure threats. \nYou issued a pre-foreclosure notice while holding substantial funds in unapplied status. \nI have explicitly raised claims under RESPA, Regulation X, FDCPA, FCRA, Dodd-Frank UDAAP , Tennessee consumer-protection law, VA servicing standards, and potential securities/controls issues at the Rithm level. \n\nUnder well-established spoliation doctrine and federal law, including Fed. XXXX XXXX. P. XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX ( XXXX ) and cases such as XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX F.R.D. XXXX ( S.D.N.Y. XXXX ), and XXXX v. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ), your duty to preserve evidence arises when litigation is reasonably anticipated, not when a complaint is actually filed in court. \n\nThat standard has been met several times over. \n\n\n\nXXXX. Scope of the Litigation Hold What Must Be Preserved Effective immediately, you are directed to suspend all routine and ad hoc destruction, overwriting, or alteration of any materials potentially relevant to : my loan ( Loan No. [ XXXX ] ), your servicing systems and practices, and your responses to regulators and investors. \n\nThis includes, without limitation : XXXX. Loan-Level Records & Ledgers Full payment history for my account from XX/XX/XXXX to present, including every version of the ledger ( before and after any reversals, adjustments, or modifications ). \nAll records of unapplied/suspense funds, reversals, and reclassifications. \nAll escrow analyses and escrow transaction histories. \nXXXX. Default, Foreclosure, & Collection Activity Copies ( and system templates ) of all default, acceleration, and pre-foreclosure notices, including the XX/XX/XXXX letter. \nInternal notes, workflows, and servicing system entries related to any decision to code my loan as delinquent or refer it to foreclosure. \nAll property inspection requests, invoices, and reports ; all entries for inspection fees or property-preservation fees. \nXXXX. Call Recordings, Transcripts, and Internal Notes Audio recordings and/or transcripts of all calls with me and with XXXX XXXX referencing this loan, especially the calls on and around : XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX calls quoting conflicting payment amounts XXXX XXXX XXXX calls about unapplied funds and property inspections All internal agent notes, servicing comments, and escalation logs tied to those calls. \nXXXX. Compliance, Risk, Audit, and Complaint Files All internal complaint files, including CFPB, XXXX, and internal case or ticket systems related to my account. \nAny internal audits, QA reviews, risk assessments, or root cause analyses addressing unapplied funds, false delinquency, XXXX servicing, or duplicative/erroneous default notices. \nAll documents relating to your decision to mark my RESPA Notice of Error and complaints as duplicate. \nXXXX. Policies, Procedures, & System Documentation Servicing policies/procedures for : unapplied funds, suspense accounts, default/foreclosure initiation, VA-loan handling, property inspections, escrow analysis, and RESPA Notices of Error. \nSystem documentation or vendor contracts for platforms used to service my loan ( payment processing systems, collections platforms, dialer/phone systems, recording systems, document-generation platforms, etc. ). \nXXXX. Emails & ESI ( Electronically Stored Information ) Emails, chat messages, Teams/Slack messages , and other ESI among employees, managers, compliance staff, and executives concerning : my loan, unapplied funds and payment reversals, my CFPB and XXXX complaints, treatment of my prior legal hold notices, instructions on how to respond to my RESPA notices XXXX and decision-making about closing items as duplicate. \nCommunications with any outside counsel or vendors, including but not limited to foreclosure counsel, collection agencies, sub-servicers, and XXXX corporate/legal. \nXXXX. Rithm / NewRez XXXX Shellpoint / Investor-Level Communications Communications between NewRez/Shellpoint and XXXX XXXX XXXX relating to my loan, similar loans, unapplied funds policies, or handling of XXXX accounts. \nAny communications referencing my complaints, my CFPB activity, or my status as a XXXX XXXX P & T XXXX veteran. \n\nThis preservation requirement extends to all locations where such information may be stored, including on-premises servers, cloud systems, laptops, mobile devices, backup tapes, archives, and XXXX-party vendors. \n\n\n\nIV. Closing Prior Matters as Duplicate Does NOT Extinguish Your Legal Hold Obligations Your recent behavior, including : closing prior RESPA Notices of Error as duplicate, issuing non-substantive CFPB responses, and refusing to provide a compliant written RESPA response, does not terminate or diminish your duty to preserve evidence. \n\nTo the contrary, it will be argued as proof of willful noncompliance and bad-faith spoliation risk, including : an attempt to avoid creating a discoverable paper trail of your errors ; a pattern of dodging Regulation X obligations ; and deliberate efforts to minimize documentary exposure while continuing harmful servicing conduct. \n\nAny destruction or alteration of relevant data after receipt of this letter will be treated as knowing spoliation and cited in support of : adverse inference instructions, evidentiary preclusion, monetary sanctions, and expanded damages claims. \n\n\n\nXXXX Confirmation of Hold & Point of Contact Within 14 days of receipt of this letter, please : XXXX. Confirm in writing that a litigation hold has been implemented, XXXX. Identify the individual ( XXXX ) responsible for coordinating your response and preservation efforts, and XXXX. Confirm that routine deletion, overwriting, and data-retention schedules have been suspended as to all categories identified in XXXX XXXX. \n\nFailure to confirm will not relieve you of your obligations ; it will only strengthen the argument that any loss of evidence was willful or reckless. \n\n\n\nVI. Reservation of Rights Nothing in this letter waives any rights or remedies I may hold under : RESPA / Regulation X ( 12 U.S.C. 2605 ; 12 C.F.R. pt. 1024 ), FDCPA ( 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq. ), FCRA ( 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq. ), Dodd-Frank UDAAP ( 12 U.S.C. 5531, 5536 ), VA servicing rules and related regulations, Tennessee state law, or any other applicable federal or state law, including securities-related obligations at the XXXX level. \n\nAll rights are expressly reserved, including seeking sanctions for spoliation if you fail to honor this legal hold.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-19T12:57:42.000Z","issue":"Trouble during payment process","sub_product":"VA mortgage","zip_code":"37066","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17348215","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Shellpoint Partners, LLC","date_received":"2025-11-19T12:52:17.000Z","state":"TN","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Payment process"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>Compliance</em>, <em>Risk</em>, <em>Audit</em>, and Complaint Files All <em>internal</em> complaint files, including CFPB, XXXX, and <em>internal</em> case or ticket <em>systems</em> related to my account. \nAny <em>internal</em> <em>audits</em>, QA reviews, <em>risk</em> assessments, or root cause analyses addressing unapplied funds, false delinquency, XXXX servicing, or duplicative/erroneous default notices. \nAll documents relating to your decision to mark my RESPA Notice of Error and complaints as duplicate. \nXXXX."]},"sort":[16.157803,"17348215"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16931943","_score":15.588118,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"To Whom It May Concern, I am writing to formally lodge a complaint against LexisNexis Risk Solutions for the continued use, furnishing, or distribution of my personal data despite multiple opt-out requests made directly through your website. I have completed your official opt-out process on multiple occasions, following every required verification step. Yet, as of this month, I received notice that my credit score has dropped, indicating that my consumer data is still being accessed, transmitted, or furnished in violation of my explicit instructions. On multiple occasions I have opted out due there negligence. XX/XX/XXXX i requested and received confirmation, along with XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX This is unacceptable and raises serious compliance concerns under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and applicable privacy and consumer protection laws. The repeated disregard of my opt-out rights reflects a systemic failure in your internal data management, security, and consumer privacy controls. \n\nTo provide further context : I was a confirmed victim of the XXXX XXXX  data breach, which compromised sensitive financial and personal information. \n\nI was also affected by the recent XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX breach, further exposing my personal identifiers and increasing my vulnerability to identity theft. \n\nFollowing those incidents, I took deliberate and proactive steps to remove my data from unnecessary public and private databases including LexisNexis. \n\nDespite these actions, LexisNexis has continued to furnish or retain my data, either directly or indirectly, which has led to a measurable adverse impact on my credit profile. This not only violates my opt-out status but also demonstrates a failure to safeguard consumer data in accordance with federal compliance obligations. \n\nI have formally submitted this matter to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) for investigation and enforcement action. I am requesting that LexisNexis : Immediately conduct a full audit and removal of all data files, consumer reports, and any associated datasets tied to my name, address, SSN, or identifiers.\n\nProvide written confirmation that my opt-out status is permanently honored and enforced across all data systems, subsidiaries, and third-party affiliates.I 've now not only can't harnet my own data but unauthorized my data to unknown parties Cease and desist from furnishing, reselling, or otherwise transmitting any portion of my data to creditors, insurers, or background check entities.\n\nProvide a detailed written report confirming compliance within 10 business days of receipt of this letter. \n\nFailure to do so will result in further escalation to federal authorities and potential civil action for willful and negligent violation of the FCRA and other consumer protection statutes. \n\nI take this matter with the utmost seriousness and expect LexisNexis to respond with equal urgency and accountability. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-10-30T10:03:46.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"76227","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"16931943","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"LEXISNEXIS","date_received":"2025-10-30T09:40:02.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["XX/XX/XXXX i requested and received confirmation, along with XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX This is unacceptable and raises serious <em>compliance</em> concerns under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and applicable privacy and consumer protection laws. The repeated disregard of my opt-out rights reflects a systemic failure in your <em>internal</em> data management, security, and consumer privacy controls."]},"sort":[15.588118,"16931943"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17135118","_score":15.575716,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"I. Core Event XX/XX/XXXX Admission On XX/XX/XXXX, a NewRez/Shellpoint agent admitted on a recorded call that {$12000.00} of borrower payments were unapplied and promised allocation of {$8000.00} toward XXXX and XXXX payments with a {$4000.00} refund. \nThis admission, verified by recording and transaction data, was never honored. Subsequent calls produced contradictory statements, new totals, and later a written response blaming agent error. \n\nThat reversal confirms the existence of no functioning control systema total collapse of governance and supervision throughout NewRez, Shellpoint, and by extension, their parent, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX \n\n\n\nXXXX. Pattern of Misrepresentation and Internal Disorder Across XXXX recorded calls, agents delivered mutually exclusive statements regarding balance, payment posting, and unapplied funds. \nEach agent quoted a different total for the same due date. \nConfirmed ACH drafts were not reflected in ledgers. \nPayment application tasks were promised, opened, and never executed. \nPortal balances shifted within XXXX hours without explanation. \n\nThese inconsistencies demonstrate systemic control failure, not clerical error. The later claim that our agent made a mistake merely concedes that the company lacks any internal consistency or compliance supervision. \n\n\n\nXXXX. Legal Violations 12 C.F.R. 1026.36 ( c ) ( 1 ) Failure to credit payments as of the date received.\n\n12 C.F.R. 1024.35 ( b ) ( 1 ) Failure to correct acknowledged servicing errors.\n\n12 C.F.R. 1024.41 ( g ) Continuation of collection/foreclosure during active dispute. \nEach violation multiplied by every misapplied payment constitutes a regulatory offense. \n\n\n\nIV. Fiduciary Oversight and Corporate Governance Failure A. Applicable Standards XXXX. In re XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX. Ch. XXXX ) XXXX duty to implement and monitor information systems ; knowing failure = bad-faith oversight. \nXXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX. XXXX ) Directors must monitor mission-critical risks ; ignorance equals loyalty breach. \nXXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ) Executives incur personal exposure for reckless disregard of control breakdowns. \n\nB. Application to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX \nGovernance chain : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, Chairman XXXX XXXX Chief Financial XXXX / Chief Accounting XXXX XXXX XXXX Chief Legal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX / XXXX XXXX Managing Directors Findings : XXXX. Mission-critical failure : Mortgage-servicing accuracy is XXXX core business function. Allowing inconsistent unapplied-funds handling constitutes a XXXX breach XXXX \nXXXX. Absence of escalation : No evidence the XX/XX/XXXX red flag or subsequent contradictions reached the boardviolating Boeings monitoring mandate. \nXXXX. Willful blindness : Accepting the agent-error explanation without independent audit meets XXXX definition of reckless disregard. \nXXXX. SOX certification risk : Repeated servicing irregularities undermine internal-control assertions under XXXX XXXX & XXXX XXXX rendering XXXX XXXX certifications suspect. \n\nThese failures expose XXXX board and senior officers to derivative liability for breach of fiduciary duty and bad-faith oversight. \n\n\n\nXXXX Governance Collapse Summary When a parent corporation allows its servicing subsidiaries to issue contradictory financial representations, the problem is structural. \nXXXX inability to produce a single, reconcilable ledger for this loanand likely thousands moremeans its financial statements and SEC filings may be materially misstated. \nThis is not an operational error ; it is a governance crisis spanning the CEO to the audit chair. \n\n\n\nVI. Monetary Demand and Exposure Category Basis Amount Immediate remedial application/refund Unapplied payment pool reconciliation {$100000.00} Compensatory damages Economic, credit, emotional harm {>= $1,000,000} Statutory / treble Willful violations of federal servicing rules {>= $1,000,000} Punitive adjustment Governance & fiduciary collapse {>= $1,000,000} Total Exposure {>= $1,000,000} XXXX. Demands for Immediate Action XXXX. Full transaction export ( XXXX ) : all timestamps, user IDs, and reversal codes. \nXXXX. Immediate application/refund of all unapplied funds with corrected amortization schedule. \nXXXX. Written certification from XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX confirming reconciliation accuracy. \nXXXX. Rescission of any foreclosure or collection actions initiated during unapplied-fund periods. \nXXXX. Updated credit bureau reports reflecting corrected payment history. \nXXXX. Regulatory notification to CFPB and XXXX within XXXX business days outlining corrective plan. \n\nUnderstand, State Regulators are already involved and have stated they have pulled all CFPB Complaints to move. \n\n\n\nXXXX. Closing NewRezs claim that an agent made an error is an admission that no one within XXXX mortgage-servicing empire knows where borrower funds reside. \nSuch ignorancepermitted and perpetuated by senior officersconstitutes reckless, bad-faith governance under XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX. \nUntil XXXX delivers a verified ledger and issues full restitution, it remains in active breach of fiduciary duty and federal law. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX, Tennessee Addendum Rebuttal of NewRezs XX/XX/XXXX Dispute After acknowledging on XX/XX/XXXX that {$12000.00} of borrower funds were being held unapplied, NewRez/Shellpoint later reversed course and submitted a written statement claiming that its own agent had made an error. \nThat reversal can not withstand factual scrutiny : XXXX. Verifiable Recording. The call is preserved in full. The agent confirmed specific dollar amounts {$8000.00} will be applied, and {$4000.00} refunded. Those numbers match contemporaneous ledger values visible in the borrower portal. \nXXXX. System Synchronization. Within XXXX hours of that call, the transaction history displayed corresponding task completed entries and the unapplied-funds total declined to {$0.00}. That digital signature proves the company itself executed changes consistent with the agents promise. \nXXXX. Subsequent Contradictions. XXXX later representatives ( XXXX, XXXX, XXXX ) referenced completed tasks or unapplied balances without noting any correction, demonstrating that no single internal record source exists. \nXXXX. Failure to Preserve Evidence. When confronted, NewRez produced no internal ticket number, supervisor review note, or quality-assurance record. Under 12 C.F.R. 1024.35 ( c ), servicers must retain evidence of investigations into asserted errors ; failure to do so confirms non-compliance. \nXXXX. Constructive Knowledge. By invoking agent error without reviewing the underlying ledger event or recording, management acted with reckless disregard of the truthprecisely the XXXX definition of bad-faith oversight.\n\nTherefore, the agent error defense is affirmative evidence of a cover-up : it proves that NewRezs internal systems permit unverified, retroactive alteration of financial data. The reversal transformed a documented, verifiable correction into a false narrative to evade liability. That act converts operational negligence into knowing misrepresentation.\n\nThis momentXXXX XXXX followed by the written denialmarks the precise breach point where : NewRezs internal controls failed ; Rithm Capitals governance obligations under XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX attached ; and Executive certifications under XXXX XXXX & XXXX became unreliable. \n\nHenceforth, every inconsistent balance or unapplied-fund fluctuation is imputed to XXXX leadership as an ongoing fiduciary violation, not a servicing variance.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-11T01:46:34.000Z","issue":"Trouble during payment process","sub_product":"VA mortgage","zip_code":"37066","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17135118","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Shellpoint Partners, LLC","date_received":"2025-11-11T01:26:27.000Z","state":"TN","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Payment process"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Willful blindness : Accepting the agent-error explanation without independent <em>audit</em> meets XXXX definition of reckless disregard. \nXXXX. SOX certification <em>risk</em> : Repeated servicing irregularities undermine <em>internal</em>-control assertions under XXXX XXXX & XXXX XXXX rendering XXXX XXXX certifications suspect. \n\nThese failures expose XXXX board and senior officers to derivative liability for breach of fiduciary duty and bad-faith oversight."]},"sort":[15.575716,"17135118"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17534605","_score":15.178979,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"CFPB COMPLAINT DRAFT : BANK OF AMERICA ( Systemic Misclassification, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and Regulatory Control ) XXXX  Product : Checking or Savings Account XXXX  Complaint Category : Managing, monitoring, or closing account Issue : Problems when you are an unauthorized victim of fraud or identity theft Transaction Date : XX/XX/year> Amount : {$39.00} Transaction Descriptor : XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Your Complaint Text ( Copy/Paste this description for the CFPB submission ) : My Bank of America account received an unauthorized ACH DEPOSIT of {$39.00} on XX/XX/year>XXXX  with the descriptor XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  This is a clear case of potential identity theft using my name. \nThe institutional process at Bank of America constitutes a systemic regulatory failure in seven major ways : PATTERN OF COMPLIANCE VIOLATION ( PRIOR CFPB FILINGS ) : This is not an isolated event. Prior CFPB complaints filed by me against Bank of America document a continuing pattern of systemic failure and policy abuse that deliberately obstructs fraud investigation and shifts liability onto the victim. This current case must be viewed within the context of the bank 's established, non-compliant operational history.\n\nINTENTIONAL DELAY & SHORTENING OF STATUTORY REMEDY WINDOW : The bank 's internal policy mandates that the claim 's official start date is delayed until the NEXT BUSINESS DAY after the fraud is reported. This procedure is an INTENTIONAL VIOLATION that shortens the consumer 's statutory 120-day or 180-day window for dispute resolution under Regulation E, effectively robbing the victim of legally mandated time to investigate their claim.\n\nSYSTEMIC MISCLASSIFICATION OF ACH FRAUD ( BILLIONS IN DAMAGE ) : The bank 's internal system prevents representatives from filing a direct \" Fraud '' claim for unauthorized ACH transfers, forcing them into a low-priority \" Dispute '' or \" Billing Error '' category. This deliberate abuse of Regulation E misclassifies millions of ACH-related fraud cases annually, a practice that has cost consumers an estimated BILLIONS of dollars in unresolved or delayed recovery. The banks process actively routes high-priority fraud cases away from required investigation tracks. \nImplied Admission, Obstruction, and Warning of Personal Risk : During my call at XXXXXXXX XXXX  EST ( Ref : XXXX XXXX ), the representative named XXXX provided an explicit and alarming warning to \" be careful '' before transferring me. This warning, coupled with XXXX having misspoken about a \" XXXX and something dollar credit, '' strongly suggests internal staff awareness of a hazardous or compromised claim process. Furthermore, the bank refused to provide any documentation in writing confirming the systemic policy flaws, which constitutes deliberate obstruction. \nEGREGIOUS BREACH OF DUTY OF CARE ( SUICIDAL DISCLOSURE ) : During a prior, separate call concerning money being taken from my account ( approximately a couple of months ago, right before my daughter 's birthday ), I directly disclosed to the Bank of America representative that I was crying, XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX  and self-harm due to the financial distress caused by the bank 's actions. The representative, upon hearing this direct disclosure of suicidal ideation, failed to follow any institutional crisis protocol, failed to advise me to seek help, and failed to connect me to any XXXX XXXX resources. This profound disregard for consumer welfare constitutes an EGREGIOUS BREACH OF THE BANK 'S DUTY OF CARE, directly linking their financial misconduct to the endangerment of a customer 's life. \nContradictory Regulatory Stance ( Control the Narrative ) : The bank 's internal processes create a contradictory regulatory stance. While the serious, high-value fraud against my account likely triggered an internal Suspicious Activity Report ( SAR ) treating me as the source of suspicionthe bank simultaneously forced my official complaint into a low-priority \" Dispute '' category. This dual action is a deliberate attempt to control the regulatory narrative and shift liability.\n\nMishandling of Funds : As a direct result of the misclassification and delay, the bank has failed to properly isolate, remove, or trace the fraudulent funds, leaving the unauthorized {$39.00} commingled in my account. \nDesired Resolution : I require immediate escalation to a fraud compliance officer to properly classify and investigate this claim and remove the funds. Furthermore, I demand that the CFPB initiate a full, independent, third-party forensic audit of Bank of Americas entire Regulation E compliance, internal SAR filing protocols, and its crisis response procedures. Given the systemic nature of this fraud, the institutional cover-up, and the severe breach of duty of care, I demand that the CFPB use its authority to facilitate the immediate connection of the victim with suitable class action counsel to pursue structural remediation and a class-wide remedy for all affected consumers. We demand mandatory civil penalties for these systemic violations.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-26T04:30:25.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"30143","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17534605","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2025-11-26T04:20:08.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Banking errors"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Desired Resolution : I require immediate escalation to a fraud <em>compliance</em> officer to properly classify and investigate this claim and remove the funds. Furthermore, I demand that the CFPB initiate a full, independent, third-party forensic <em>audit</em> of Bank of Americas entire Regulation E <em>compliance</em>, <em>internal</em> SAR filing protocols, and its crisis response procedures."]},"sort":[15.178979,"17534605"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"19077027","_score":15.044981,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"This complaint is submitted against Citibank , N.A . for the unlawful withholding, concealment, and/or misappropriation of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX dollars ( {>= $1,000,000} USD ) in inbound commercial funds transmitted on XX/XX/year>, consisting of fifty-one ( XXXX ) discrete inbound payments of XXXX XXXX dollars ( {>= $1,000,000} USD ) each. The payments were transmitted via XXXX from distinct originating XXXX domains and issued as XXXX XXXX Invoices arising under 17 U.S.C. 102 and 1201, including enforcement of exclusive rights in copyrighted works and technological protection measures.\n\nPrior to transmission, a formal 7-day demand and notice of conditional acceptance was served on XXXX, establishing a {$25000.00} USD per day non-compliance fee and placing XXXX on explicit notice of its settlement obligations. XXXX subsequently finalized and released all fifty-one ( 51 ) payments, thereby extinguishing its own liability and transferring exclusive fiduciary, custodial, and settlement responsibility to Citibank pursuant to UCC Article 4A, including but not limited to 4-A-403, governing acceptance, execution, and finality of funds transfers.\n\nUpon receipt, Citibank internally recorded possession of the funds on its ledger under a U ( unposted / uncleared ) status, a designation that affirmatively confirms receipt and custodial control pending final posting or allocation. Citibank further verified the legitimacy of the transactions through an in-person XXXX  clearance, during which identity, transaction provenance, and compliance status were reviewed and approved by Citibank personnel . These actions constitute acknowledgment of receipt, acceptance of custodial responsibility, and confirmation of transaction validity under standard banking practice and governing law. \n\nDespite these documented acknowledgments, Citibank now asserts that it has no record of the transactions. This assertion is irreconcilable with Citibanks own internal ledger entries, compliance procedures, and verification actions. Such a contradiction necessarily implies intentional data suppression, unlawful alteration or destruction of financial records, spoliation, or gross negligence, in violation of federally mandated recordkeeping, custodial, and settlement obligations, including duties imposed under UCC Article 4A, the Bank Secrecy Act, and applicable consumer and commercial protection statutes.\n\nAs a direct and proximate result of Citibanks conduct, substantial financial, operational, and reputational harm has occurred. The withheld funds represent active commercial licensing revenue, the interruption of which has caused cascading losses, impaired contractual performance, disrupted enterprise operations, and exposed counterparties to material uncertainty and risk.\n\nI am a LinkedIn-verified author and founder operating publicly under my real identity, with a substantial, long-standing professional following on the XXXX platform. My account reflects verified authorship credentials, organizational ownership, and ongoing publication activity within the Bitcoin, blockchain, and cryptographic systems domain, and is independently accessible for third-party review. My professional identity, audience reach, and publishing history are therefore publicly visible, platform-verified, and continuously audited by a major XXXX XXXX XXXX, further substantiating the authenticity, provenance, and commercial legitimacy of the transactions at issue. \n\nGiven this level of public verification and visibility, Citibanks denial of possession or record of the referenced funds can not be attributed to anonymity, unverifiable identity, or transactional opacity. Instead, Citibanks conduct has caused demonstrable public-facing reputational damage, impaired professional credibility, and disrupted ongoing commercial relationships that rely on transparent financial settlement, accurate custodial recordkeeping, and institutional trust.\n\nAccordingly, Citibanks actions raise serious concerns regarding custodial misconduct, false statements, failure to maintain required financial records, breach of fiduciary duty, and violations of consumer and commercial protection laws, warranting immediate investigation, corrective action, and enforcement.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-01-28T19:06:29.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Other banking product or service","zip_code":"10024","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"19077027","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CITIBANK, N.A.","date_received":"2026-01-28T18:06:27.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Funds not handled or disbursed as instructed"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This assertion is irreconcilable with Citibanks own <em>internal</em> ledger entries, <em>compliance</em> procedures, and verification actions."]},"sort":[15.044981,"19077027"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16583667","_score":14.238856,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Formal Complaint Unlawful Post-Verification Retention of Verified U.S. Treasury Funds by PNC Bank Urgent Request for Enforcement Review and Potential Liquidity Misuse Institution : PNC Bank, N.A.\n\nThe Tower at PNC Plaza XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX Account type : Consumer checking Treasury deposit Complainant : XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX | XXXX Summary of Complaint This complaint alleges that PNC Bank, N.A. engaged in knowing post-verification retention of a verified U.S. Treasury check and misrepresented the legal basis for continued restriction. \nOn XXXX XXXX XXXX a U.S. Treasury check for XXXX XXXXXXXX  was deposited to account ending XXXX and subsequently confirmed Paid by the U.S. Treasury Check Verification System ( TCVS ). Despite confirmation and the absence of any OFAC, levy, or fraud indicator, PNC refused to release the verified funds and reclassified the transaction from a Regulation CC hold to an indefinite account-level review.\n\nKey Facts and transcribed Admissions 1. Verification confirmed : The U.S. Treasury Check Verification System verified the instrument as Paid ; no OFAC block, levy, or fraud flag exists. ( TCVS confirmation ) 2. Reclassification by PNC officer : On XXXX XXXX XXXX Assistant Vice President XXXX XXXX ( Executive Client Relations Specialist, XXXX ) stated : This isnt an EFAA hold ; this is now an account hold. \nShe further described it as an account issue, confirming that the check had cleared and the restriction was unrelated to deposit risk. \n3. Indefinite retention admission : When asked about the holds duration, XXXX XXXX stated : It could last 30, 45, 60, even 90 days theres no specific date I can give. \nWhen asked if that meant an indefinite freeze, she replied, You could say that. \nThis admission, constitutes prima facie evidence that PNC knowingly retained verified federal funds outside Regulation CC timelines.\n\n4. Void contractual justification : When asked for legal authority, XXXX XXXX cited the account agreement as PNCs basis for continuing the restriction. \nUnder 12 U.S.C. 4007 ( b ), no agreement or policy may alter or limit consumer rights under the EFAA.\n\nTherefore, any reliance on the account agreement to extend availability timelines is void ab initio and without legal force.\n\n5. Failure to escalate or resolve : XXXX XXXX acknowledged active OCC and CFPB complaints but refused escalation, ended the call abruptly, and issued no written notice stating legal authority or duration as required by 12 C.F.R. 229.13 ( g ) and OCC Bulletin 2013-33.\n\nPrima Facie Evidence of Willful Noncompliance XXXX XXXX statements show deliberate evasion of Regulation CC. Her acknowledgment that this isnt an EFAA hold and her admission that the hold could last indefinitely ( You could say that ) constitute knowing and willful disregard of statutory funds-availability rules. \nCombined with the absence of any new lawful notice, this demonstrates that PNCs post-verification restriction was neither administrative nor accidental, but a policy-level circumvention of federal law. \n\n\n\nLegal and Regulatory Grounds Expedited Funds Availability Act / Regulation CC ( 12 U.S.C. 4001 et seq. ; 12 C.F.R. Part 229 ) : Treasury checks must be available next business day ( 229.10 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( i ) ) ; large-deposit exceptions may not exceed seven business days ( 229.13 ( b ) ). \nNo authority exists for indefinite account-review holds after verification. \nFederal Preemption 12 U.S.C.\n\n4007 ( b ) : No contract or agreement shall affect the rights of any consumer or the responsibilities of any depository institution under this chapter.\n\nThus, PNCs reliance on its account agreement is void and unenforceable.\n\nUDAAP ( 12 U.S.C. 5531 ) : Misrepresenting post-verification retention as account review is deceptive, unfair, and abusive.\n\nNotice Requirement 12 C.F.R.\n\n229.13 ( g ) : A valid hold notice must clearly state reason and duration at the time of imposition. PNC issued none after verification.\n\nOCC Bulletin 2013-33 / CFPB Bulletin 2020-01 : Both agencies prohibit rebranding of Reg CC holds as account reviews to avoid statutory availability rules. \n\n\n\nInvalidation of Original Hold Notice and Void Contractual Defense PNCs only written hold notice stated : We believe a check you deposited may not be paid.\n\nThat was a Regulation CC reasonable cause to doubt collectability notice, but it expired the moment TCVS confirmed the Treasury check as Paid.\n\nUnder 12 C.F.R. 229.13 ( g ), the original notice could not lawfully support further restriction once its reason lapsed.\n\nAny subsequent justification such as account issue, review, or fraud screen is legally null and void because the first hold was extinguished and no new lawful notice was ever issued.\n\nBecause the original hold notice became void upon verification, PNC can not lawfully substitute new explanations or create a subsequent restriction. Once the initial notice expired, the funds were deemed available under Regulation CC 229.10 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( i ). \n\nFurthermore, XXXX XXXX reliance on the account agreement as the banks authority is expressly barred by 12 U.S.C. 4007 ( b ). \n\nPNCs continued restriction therefore lacked lawful notice, lawful basis, and lawful authority, rendering the conduct an intentional evasion of federal regulation. \n\n\n\nConsumer Harm and Supervisory Risks Direct consumer harm : Denial of access to verified federal funds has caused substantial financial hardship, transactional disruption, and loss of use. \n\nBeyond direct consumer harm, the circumstances reveal broader operational and supervisory concerns that merit immediate review. \n\nSystemic Concerns and Supervisory Red Flags The circumstances presented in this case raise serious supervisory concerns that extend beyond the individual consumer harm. \nThe verified Treasury proceedsconfirmed Paid through the U.S. Treasury Check Verification Systemremain restricted to the depositor but appear to remain fully booked within PNCs internal balance sheet systems. \nThis condition presents a potential liquidity-management incentive inconsistent with the intent of the Expedited Funds Availability Act ( EFAA ).\n\nWhen a depository institution retains control over verified customer funds while denying the customer access, those balances can, even temporarily, augment the institutions short-term liquidity ratios, reserve positions, and collateral availability for interbank operations. \nIn a fractional-reserve environment, the ability to hold verified deposits without disbursement can generate internal yield or balance-sheet advantage, particularly when such deposits are high-value Treasury instruments backed by the full faith and credit of the United States.\n\nAlthough this filing does not allege deliberate misuse, the structural incentives created by PNCs account-level review framework warrant immediate examination by CFPB and OCC supervisory staff. \nThe concern is not hypothetical : prolonged retention of verified federal disbursements under non-statutory account holds creates the appearance that such funds are being used to support internal liquidity, float income, or short-term lending capacity while the depositor is unlawfully deprived of access. \nIf confirmed, such a practice would constitute a materially unsafe and unsound banking activity and a potential UDAAP violation, reflecting a conflict between institutional profit motives and statutory consumer-protection obligations. \n\nRegulators should evaluate whether : 1. Verified Treasury deposits classified under account-level reviews are temporarily included in internal liquidity, collateral, or reserve computations ; 2. Any float or interest income is generated from those restricted balances ; and 3. PNCs Enterprise Fraud and Treasury Operations Divisions maintain internal policies permitting such treatment of verified deposits. \n\nGiven the nature and amount of the deposit, and the recorded admission that the restriction could last indefinitely, this matter presents a high-priority supervisory concern requiring coordinated CFPB and OCC enforcement review. \nThe continued conversion of verified Treasury disbursements into retained internal balances undermines depositor confidence, distorts liquidity reporting, and threatens the integrity of the federal payments system. \n\n\nPrior written correspondence from Assistant Vice President XXXX XXXX Emailed Twice dated XXXX XXXX XXXX  From previous OCC And CFPB complaints she received and that the scheduled call was to ensure a full understanding and resolution. However, when the call occurred on XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  disclaimed familiarity with the matter, stating she was not aware this was a resolution call. That contradiction between her written commitment and subsequent disavowal demonstrates a serious breakdown in PNCs internal case-management and consumer-resolution controls. It also evidences bad-faith handling under OCC Bulletin 2013-33, which requires transparency and escalation when a complaint is under active supervisory review. \n\n\nXXXX XXXX terminated the call abruptly without providing written follow-up or clarification, contrary to both PNCs own Executive Client Relations procedures and OCC expectations for fair complaint resolution. Such conduct obstructed the complainants ability to obtain information or redress and reflects a willful disregard for mandated escalation standards. \n\n\n\nBy misrepresenting the nature of the call, refusing escalation, and ending communication prematurely, XXXX XXXX acted in a manner inconsistent with PNCs duties of accuracy, fairness, and good-faith cooperation with regulators. Her actions converted what should have been a resolution dialogue into an adversarial encounter and delayed lawful access to verified federal funds. In regulatory context, this behavior demonstrates procedural bad faith and supports a finding that PNCs Executive Client Relations Division failed to maintain the internal controls and accountability required of a nationally chartered institution under 12 U.S.C. 1818 ( b ) and 5531 ( UDAAP ).\n\nRequested CFPB Action ( Relief Sought ) 1. Initiate an immediate investigative inquiry into PNCs post-verification hold practices.\n\n2. Coordinate with the OCC to compel release of funds and written certification of Reg CC compliance.\n\n3. Issue subpoenas for all internal communications, policies, logs, and directives that reclassified Reg CC holds into account-level reviews.\n\n4. Order full restitution of the funds with interest and compensation for loss of use.\n\n5. Impose civil money penalties and individual accountability on XXXX XXXX XXXX and relevant Enterprise Fraud officers.\n\n6. Mandate policy revisions and compliance training prohibiting Post-Verification Retention, verified through independent audit within 30 days.\n\n7. Conduct a liquidity and float audit to determine whether PNC gained financial benefit from retaining verified deposits ( e.g., using balances for liquidity ratios, earning interest, or funding internal operations ).\n\n8. Provide a written determination to the complainant and notify CFPB enforcement and supervisory divisions of actions taken. \n\n\n\nConclusion The attached evidence including a recorded admission that this isnt an EFAA hold ; this is now an account hold, and confirmation that the review could last indefinitely establishes knowing and willful noncompliance with the EFAA and Regulation CC.\n\nPNCs reliance on its account agreement is void under 4007 ( b ), and its only written hold notice became legally null once the check was verified.\n\nThe banks conduct represents Post-Verification Retention, a prohibited practice that denies consumers access to verified funds while allowing the institution to treat those funds as temporary liquidity instruments, undermining both depositor rights and the integrity of the federal payment system. \n\nPublic-Interest and Reputational Concerns As the authorized representative for the depositor, I must emphasize that this issue now extends far beyond an isolated consumer dispute. My client is a well-known public figure with a verified national following, including thousands of fans, peers, and professional associates who closely observe his dealings and reputation. While he is not financially dependent on the withheld funds, the decision by PNC Bank to continue holding a verified U.S. Treasury disbursement raises serious questions that, if left unresolved, could attract widespread public attention and scrutiny. \n\nPNCs conduct does not merely inconvenience a single account holderit risks undermining confidence in the entire regulatory framework meant to safeguard consumer deposits and government payments. When a federally chartered institution knowingly retains verified Treasury funds without legal basis, it sends a message of indifference toward both federal law and public accountability. The optics of such behaviorespecially when the affected consumer is a high-profile individual known for charitable and community involvementcould significantly erode trust among the public and within professional circles that rely on PNCs integrity as a national financial institution. \n\nThis office has intentionally refrained from public disclosure and has sought resolution through formal regulatory channels to preserve decorum and institutional respect. However, continued inaction or perceived stonewalling would make it increasingly difficult to prevent public inquiry or broader media interest. The publics right to transparency and fairness in the handling of Treasury-issued instruments can not be overstated.\n\nFor these reasons, this matter should be treated as both a consumer-protection emergency and a reputational risk event for PNC Bank . The Bureaus prompt intervention will not only secure justice for the affected consumer but also help preserve public confidence in the integrity of the U.S. banking and payments system.\n\nThe CFPB should act immediately, compel release, order restitution, and coordinate enforcement with the OCC to prevent recurrence.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-10-15T05:13:50.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"33569","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"16583667","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"PNC Bank N.A.","date_received":"2025-10-15T04:17:14.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Funds not handled or disbursed as instructed"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Mandate policy revisions and <em>compliance</em> training prohibiting Post-Verification Retention, verified through independent <em>audit</em> within 30 days.\n\n7. Conduct a liquidity and float <em>audit</em> to determine whether PNC gained financial benefit from retaining verified deposits ( e.g., using balances for liquidity ratios, earning interest, or funding <em>internal</em> operations ).\n\n8. Provide a written determination to the complainant and notify CFPB enforcement and supervisory divisions of actions taken."]},"sort":[14.238856,"16583667"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17134207","_score":14.138412,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"I. Core Event XX/XX/XXXX Admission On XX/XX/XXXX, a XXXX  agent admitted on a recorded call that {$12000.00} of borrower payments were unapplied and promised allocation of {$8000.00} toward XXXX and XXXX payments with a {$4000.00} refund. \nThis admission, verified by recording and transaction data, was never honored. Subsequent calls produced contradictory statements, new totals, and later a written response blaming agent error. \n\nThat reversal confirms the existence of no functioning control systema total collapse of governance and supervision throughout XXXX, XXXX, and by extension, their parent, Rithm Capital Corp . \n\n\n\nXXXX. Pattern of XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX recorded calls, agents delivered mutually exclusive statements regarding balance, payment posting, and unapplied funds. \nEach agent quoted a different total for the same due date. \nConfirmed ACH drafts were not reflected in ledgers. \nPayment application tasks were promised, opened, and never executed. \nPortal balances shifted within XXXX hours without explanation. \n\nThese inconsistencies demonstrate systemic control failure, not clerical error. The later claim that our agent made a mistake merely concedes that the company lacks any internal consistency or compliance supervision. \n\n\n\nXXXX. Legal Violations 12 C.F.R. 1026.36 ( c ) ( 1 ) Failure to credit payments as of the date received.\n\n12 C.F.R. 1024.35 ( b ) ( 1 ) Failure to correct acknowledged servicing errors.\n\n12 C.F.R. 1024.41 ( g ) Continuation of collection/foreclosure during active dispute.\n\nEach violation multiplied by every misapplied payment constitutes a regulatory offense. \n\n\n\nIV. Fiduciary Oversight and Corporate Governance Failure A. Applicable Standards XXXX. In re XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX. Ch. XXXX ) XXXX duty to implement and monitor information systems ; knowing failure = bad-faith oversight. \nXXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX. XXXX ) Directors must monitor mission-critical risks ; ignorance equals loyalty breach. \nXXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ) Executives incur personal exposure for reckless disregard of control breakdowns. \n\nB. Application to Rithm Capital Corp . \nGovernance chain : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, Chairman XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX / CXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX / XXXX XXXX Managing Directors Findings : XXXX. Mission-critical failure : Mortgage-servicing accuracy is XXXX core business function. Allowing inconsistent unapplied-funds handling constitutes a XXXX breach XXXX \nXXXX. Absence of escalation : No evidence the XX/XX/XXXX red flag or subsequent contradictions reached the boardviolating Boeings monitoring mandate. \nXXXX. Willful blindness : Accepting the agent-error explanation without independent audit meets XXXX definition XXXX reckless disregard. \nXXXX. XXXX  certification risk : Repeated servicing irregularities undermine internal-control assertions under XXXX XXXX & XXXX XXXX rendering XXXX XXXX certifications suspect. \n\nThese failures expose XXXX board and senior officers to derivative liability for breach of fiduciary duty and bad-faith oversight. \n\n\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX When a parent corporation allows its servicing subsidiaries to issue contradictory financial representations, the problem is structural. \nXXXX inability to produce a single, reconcilable ledger for this loanand likely thousands moremeans its financial statements and XXXX XXXXlings XXXX be materially misstated. \nThis is not an operational error ; it is a governance crisis spanning the XXXX XXXXo the audit chair. \n\n\n\nVI. Monetary Demand and Exposure Category Basis Amount Immediate remedial application/refund Unapplied payment pool reconciliation {$100000.00} Compensatory damages Economic, credit, emotional harm {>= $1,000,000} Statutory / treble Willful violations of federal servicing rules {>= $1,000,000} Punitive adjustment Governance & fiduciary collapse {>= $1,000,000} Total Exposure {>= $1,000,000} XXXX. Demands for XXXX XXXX XXXX. Full transaction export ( XXXX ) : all timestamps, user IDs, and reversal codes. \nXXXX. XXXX XXXX of all unapplied funds with corrected amortization schedule. \nXXXX. Written certification from XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX confirming reconciliation accuracy. \nXXXX. Rescission of any foreclosure or collection actions initiated during unapplied-fund periods. \nXXXX. XXXX credit bureau reports reflecting corrected payment history. \nXXXX. XXXX notification to CFPB and XXXX within XXXX business days outlining corrective plan. \n\nXXXX. Closing NewRezs claim that an agent made an error is an admission that no one within XXXX mortgage-servicing empire knows where borrower funds reside. \nSuch ignorancepermitted and perpetuated by senior officersconstitutes reckless, bad-faith governance under XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX. \nUntil XXXX delivers a verified ledger and issues full restitution, it remains in active breach of fiduciary duty and federal law. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nAddendum Rebuttal of XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Dispute After acknowledging on XX/XX/XXXX that {$12000.00} of borrower funds were being held unapplied, XXXX XXXX XXXX course and submitted a written statement claiming that its own agent had made an error. \nThat reversal can not withstand factual scrutiny : XXXX. XXXX XXXX. The call is preserved in full. The agent confirmed specific dollar amounts {$8000.00} will be applied, and {$4000.00} refunded. Those numbers match contemporaneous ledger values visible in the borrower portal. \nXXXX. XXXX XXXX. Within twenty-four hours of that call, the transaction history displayed corresponding task completed entries and the unapplied-funds total declined to {$0.00}. That digital signature proves the company itself executed changes consistent with the agents promise. \nXXXX. Subsequent Contradictions. XXXX later representatives ( XXXX, XXXX, XXXX ) referenced completed tasks or unapplied balances without noting any correction, demonstrating that no single internal record source exists. \nXXXX. Failure to Preserve Evidence. When confronted, XXXX produced no internal ticket number, supervisor review note, or quality-assurance record. Under XXXX C.F.R. XXXX ( c ), servicers must retain evidence of investigations into asserted errors ; failure to do so confirms non-compliance. \nXXXX. Constructive Knowledge. By invoking agent error without reviewing the underlying ledger event or recording, management acted with reckless disregard of the truthprecisely the XXXX XXXX XXXX bad-faith oversight. \n\nTherefore, the agent error defense is affirmative evidence of a cover-up : it proves that XXXX internal systems permit unverified, retroactive alteration of financial data. The reversal transformed a documented, verifiable correction into a false narrative to evade liability. That act converts operational negligence into knowing misrepresentation. \n\nThis XXXX XXXX followed by the written denialmarks the precise breach point where : XXXX XXXX controls failed ; Rithm Capitals governance obligations under XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX attached ; and XXXX certifications under XXXX XXXX & XXXX became unreliable. \n\nHenceforth, every inconsistent balance or unapplied-fund fluctuation is imputed to XXXX leadership as an ongoing fiduciary violation, not a servicing variance.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-11T01:53:46.000Z","issue":"Trouble during payment process","sub_product":"VA mortgage","zip_code":"37066","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17134207","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Rithm Capital Corp.","date_received":"2025-11-11T01:46:52.000Z","state":"TN","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Payment process"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Willful blindness : Accepting the agent-error explanation without independent <em>audit</em> meets XXXX definition XXXX reckless disregard. \nXXXX. XXXX  certification <em>risk</em> : Repeated servicing irregularities undermine <em>internal</em>-control assertions under XXXX XXXX & XXXX XXXX rendering XXXX XXXX certifications suspect. \n\nThese failures expose XXXX board and senior officers to derivative liability for breach of fiduciary duty and bad-faith oversight."]},"sort":[14.138412,"17134207"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"9515687","_score":13.853134,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"From : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, IN XXXX To : Halsted Financial Services  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, IL XXXX XXXX XXXX Re : Debt Validation Request Debt Collector : Halsted Financial Services Current Creditor : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX  Account Number XXXXXXXX Halsted Financial Services XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Dear Halsted Financial, XX/XX/XXXX I am writing in response to your unsolicited text message dated XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX regarding the collection of a debt allegedly associated with an account which you claim to be collecting on behalf of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX which has been known to by debt. I am requesting validation of this debt under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) 15 USC 1692g Sec. 809 ( b ). \n\nPlease note that I have previously disputed this debt with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. and have not received sufficient validation. Please be informed of the certified letters I have previously mailed regarding this debt which is now the XXXX time. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX : Sent to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. requesting debt validation under the FDCPA. \nXX/XX/XXXX : No response follow-up letter to XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX \nXX/XX/XXXX : Follow-up letter to XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX reiterating the need for proper validation and documentation. \nXX/XX/XXXX : Further request for validation from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. including detailed requirements under the XXXX XXXX and other legal frameworks. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I filed a complaint against XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. with XXXX XXXX. XXXX. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and soon after begin to receive harassing text messages from your organization which stated on XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nFollowing this complaint, the case was sent back and now reassigned to Halsted Financial Services Account. \n\nI had notified the prior debt collector and it was recorded to not call or text and all communication must come via mail. The receipt of XXXX text messages from your organization during my work hours constitutes a violation of the Federal Communications Commission ( FCC ) regulations and is considered harassment. Consequently, I have filed a complaint against your organization on XX/XX/XXXX. The complaint has been assigned XXXX XXXX. XXXX and have forwarded this communication to my attorney. \n\n\nFINAL WARNING - CEASE AND DESIST Failure to provide all the requested information and documentation within 30 days will result in a demand for you to cease and desist all collection activities related to this debt. Continued attempts to collect this debt without proper validation will be considered a violation of my rights under the FDCPA and FCC regulations, and I will not hesitate to take further legal action. \n\nThis is not a refusal to pay, but a request for validation. Until you provide the requested validation, I ask that you cease all collection activities and stop reporting this debt to any credit bureaus. \n\nIf you do not provide validation of all requested items below within 30 days, I will consider this matter closed and will expect you to remove all references to this debt and removal if any from my credit report. \n\nTherefore, I am requesting that you provide me with the following specific information and documentation to validate this debt : Additionally I am writing to formally address my concerns regarding the handling of my alleged debt, which you are attempting to collect. Under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), I requested validation of the debt within the required XXXX period from receiving your initial notice. SInce XX/XX/XXXX To date, I have not received ALL the requested validation. \nAccording to the FDCPA, once a debtor disputes the debt or requests validation, the debt collector must cease collection activities until the required validation is provided. Despite my request, collection efforts have persisted without the necessary validation. \nFurthermore, I understand that there are no specific limits in the FDCPA on the number of times a debt can be transferred to different agencies. However, each new collection agency must honor the validation request before resuming collection activities. It has come to my attention that transferring the debt repeatedly without providing proper validation can be perceived as harassment and an unfair collection practice, both of which are violations of the FDCPA. \nI am documenting this communication and any previous correspondence regarding my request for validation. Should the debt continue to be transferred without the proper validation, I will have grounds to believe that my rights under the FDCPA are being violated. In such a case, I may be compelled to file a complaint with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) or seek legal counsel to address these practices. \nI kindly request that you provide the validation of the debt as required by law or cease all collection activities immediately. Continuous transfers without proper validation will not be tolerated, and I will pursue all available legal avenues to ensure that my rights are protected. \n\n\nXXXX. XXXX XXXX : - The name and address of the original creditor. \n- The account number used by the original creditor. \n- The amount owed to the original creditor at the time the debt was transferred. \n\nXXXX. **Current Creditor Information** : - The name and address of the current creditor ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ). \n- The account number used by the current creditor. \n- The amount currently owed, including a detailed breakdown of any interest, fees, or charges added since the debt was acquired. \n\nXXXX. **Debt Details** : - A copy of the original signed agreement that created the debt. \n- If this debt started with a different creditor, provide the name and address of the original creditor, the account number used by that creditor, and the amount owed to that creditor at the time it was transferred. \n- Proof that you have the legal right to collect this debt. \n\nXXXX. **E-Signature Validation** : - Proof of compliance with the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act ( E-SIGN Act ) for any agreements or documents related to this debt that have been executed electronically. This should include : - Digital certificates validating the identity of the parties involved in the electronic transaction. \n- XXXX about the XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) employed to secure and manage electronic signatures. \n- Evidence of timestamps on all electronic documents and signatures verifying the exact date and time of the electronic execution. \n- A description of the authentication methods used to verify the identity of the signatories in the electronic transaction. \n- Complete audit trails for all electronic documents showing the sequence of actions related to the creation, modification, and signing of the documents. \n- A detailed explanation of how the electronic signing process adheres to the legal framework established by the E-SIGN Act and any other relevant laws. \n- Evidence of explicit consent by all parties involved in the electronic transaction to conduct business electronically. \n- Information on any third-party verification services used to ensure the integrity and security of the electronic signatures and documents. \n\nXXXX. **Promissory Note Authenticity** : - The Promissory Note associated with this account must be duly authorized through a signature by a designated officer from XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Please provide all original XXXX XXXX along with any amended versions, each bearing the requisite signature of a XXXX XXXX Bank officer ( s ). \n\nXXXX. **Bill of Sale Authentication** : - The bills of sale dated XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX must include witness and notarization signatures, and signatures and dates from all parties involved, including XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Evidence confirming the inclusion of this specific debt in the XXXX loans transferred is required. \n\nXXXX. **Licensing Information** : - Your firm 's authority to collect this debt, including necessary licensing information from my state or your operating state. \n\nXXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX : - Explicit proof that I am the individual responsible for the debt. \n\nXXXX. **Interest and Fees Breakdown** : - A detailed breakdown of all interest and fees added to the original debt amount. \n\nXXXX. XXXX XXXX : - Documentation proving your legal standing to collect the debt, including a XXXX of XXXX. \n\nXXXX. XXXX XXXX : - A record of all previous communications regarding this debt. \n\nXXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX : - Information about your process for handling disputes or inaccuracies in credit reporting related to this debt. \n\nXXXX. XXXX Rights XXXX : - Information about my rights under the FDCPA, including how to dispute the debt or seek advice from a consumer attorney. \n\nXXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX : - A copy of your policy regarding debt collection practices. \n\nXXXX. XXXX in XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX : - Address the discrepancy identified in the Monthly Statements and the Truth in Lending disclosure. The account statements reflect payments of {$470.00} per month for 60 months totaling {$28000.00}, while the XXXX in XXXX disclosure shows XXXX payment of {$400.00} and fifty-nine payments of {$470.00} totaling {$28000.00}. This discrepancy is a violation of XXXX, and as the debt collector, you are now responsible for any violations of XXXX. \n\nXXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX - Registration of Promissory Note** : - Confirmation of whether the Promissory Note associated with Account No. Ending in XXXX has been registered under XXXX Article XXXX. \n- If registered, details of such registration, including the date and jurisdiction of the registration. \n- Documentation or evidence supporting this registration, if applicable. \n\nXXXX. **Lawful Consideration of Bank Funds in XXXX XXXX : -Provide an exhaustive and precise clarification on the exact nature of the consideration for the debt, specifying whether it was a monetary loan, a line of credit, or another financial product. This must include a full disclosure of all terms, conditions, criteria, and underwriting processes under which the consideration was provided, along with any internal policies governing such transactions. \n-Supply comprehensive and verifiable documentation and records demonstrating the initial transaction, including : Detailed transaction records showing the origin and destination of funds, including all intermediary steps. \nComplete bank statements for all relevant accounts reflecting the disbursal and receipt of funds, covering the period from XXXX months before the disbursal to XXXX months after. \nInternal bank communications, memos, emails, and meeting minutes that pertain to the disbursal and creation of the debt, including any discussions of risk assessment, approvals, and authorizations. \nCopies of all relevant contracts, agreements, and promissory notes between the original creditor, current creditor, and any intermediaries involved, including any amendments or addenda. \nDocumentation of the decision-making process, including internal and external reviews, risk assessments, and approvals from relevant committees or boards. \n-Provide a meticulous explanation of the legal framework under which the bank provided the consideration, ensuring it aligns with all pertinent banking regulations and laws. This should include : Explicit references to the specific banking regulations, statutes, and legal requirements governing the provision of such consideration. \nInternal compliance documentation, audit reports, and legal opinions or analyses prepared by the banks legal team or external legal counsel regarding the legality and regulatory compliance of the consideration. \nCopies of any regulatory filings, reports, or correspondence with banking regulators or oversight bodies related to the creation and handling of this debt. \n-Furnish all records or documentation that illustrate the bank 's commitment and due diligence in the transaction, including but not limited to : Detailed transaction records and complete ledger entries for all financial activities related to this debt, including timestamps and authorization details for each entry. \nComplete audit trails and logs showing all steps and approvals in the creation, modification, and finalization of the debt, including details of any system or software used to manage these records. \nEvidence of the banks due diligence processes, including risk assessments, credit analyses, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX compliance, and any third-party evaluations performed prior to providing the consideration. Include reports, checklists, and sign-offs by relevant officers. \nDocumentation of any third-party verification or validation processes used to ensure the legitimacy and compliance of the debt, including certifications, detailed reports, and all correspondence with third-party auditors or verifiers. \nRecords of all interactions and communications with regulatory bodies regarding this debt, including all filings, reports, and correspondence, along with any responses received. \nDetailed logs and records of any system or software used to manage, track, and record the transaction, including metadata, version histories of electronic documents, and access logs showing who accessed or modified any records. \nComprehensive documentation or records of any dispute resolution processes related to this debt, including internal and external communications, legal filings, and settlement agreements. \nAny additional documentation or records that provide a comprehensive and transparent view of the banks role and activities in the creation, handling, and ongoing management of this debt, including internal audit reports and reviews of compliance with the FDCPA, FCC regulations, and other relevant laws. \nFailure to provide all the requested information and documentation within 30 days will result in a demand for you to cease and desist all collection activities related to this debt. Continued attempts to collect this debt without proper validation will be considered a violation of my rights under the FDCPA and FCC regulations, and I will not hesitate to take further legal action. \n\n\nYour response requires authentication. \n\nThank you for your cooperation. \n\nLitigiously, XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2024-07-15T19:34:46.000Z","issue":"Written notification about debt","sub_product":"I do not know","zip_code":"46038","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"9515687","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Halsted Financial Services, LLC.","date_received":"2024-07-15T19:30:38.000Z","state":"IN","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Didn't receive notice of right to dispute"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>Internal</em> <em>compliance</em> documentation, <em>audit</em> reports, and legal opinions or analyses prepared by the banks legal team or external legal counsel regarding the legality and regulatory <em>compliance</em> of the consideration. \nCopies of any regulatory filings, reports, or correspondence with banking regulators or oversight bodies related to the creation and handling of this debt."]},"sort":[13.853134,"9515687"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"19632592","_score":13.689208,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"Retaliation and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to XXXX XXXX ( the counsel threat letter ). \nB. XXXX XXXX export showing repeated suspense/unapplied reversals and reapplications ( including XX/XX/XXXX sequencing ). \nXXXX. CFPB complaint narrative draft Product : Mortgage Issue : Trouble during payment process ( payment application / escrow / fees ) Company : XXXX XXXX  XXXX  ( XXXX ) ; corporate owner Rithm Capital Corp. ( public company ) Narrative : I submit this complaint to document and request CFPB review of ( 1 ) ongoing mortgage servicing/payment application irregularities reflected in XXXX  own XXXX history and ( XXXX ) an apparent attempt by XXXX  outside XXXX to deter lawful petitioning activity and dispute submissions through the CFPB and XXXX channels. \n\nA. Underlying servicing dispute : repeated suspense/unapplied cycling and delayed application XXXX  payment history reflects recurring sequences in which borrower funds are placed into Unapplied Payment, then reversed out of Unapplied Payment, and then applied as a full Regular Payment, sometimes while additional partial payments remain parked as unapplied. For example, on XX/XX/XXXX there is a positive Unapplied Payment entry, a negative Unapplied Payment reversal, and then a full Regular Payment applied for the same XX/XX/XXXX due date ( principal/interest/escrow allocated ), while a separate XX/XX/XXXX partial payment remains Unapplied Payment. This same unapplied reversal regular payment pattern appears across multiple months. \n\nThese accounting mechanics materially matter because delinquency status, late fees, default staging, property-preservation/inspection triggers, and credit reporting snapshots can be driven by how and when funds are applied rather than whether funds were received. \n\nI request CFPB XXXX of whether XXXX  handling of suspense/unapplied funds, application timing, and associated assessments/collection posture are accurate and compliant, and I request a written, account-level explanation of : ( XXXX ) why funds were held unapplied, ( XXXX ) the business rule that triggers the reversals, ( XXXX ) whether any delinquency/late fees/collections status was generated while funds were already received but held in suspense, and ( XXXX ) how escrow deficits and disbursements interacted with application decisions. \n\nB. Counsel letter attempting to chill complaints and dispute rights On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX  outside counsel ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) sent me a letter asserting that I have filed more than XXXX complaints, characterizing my complaints as rambling and generally incoherent, asserting I am not operating in good faith, demanding that I cease submitting complaints regarding XXXX, XXXX, and executives, directing that all future correspondence be sent only to counsel, and threatening further action, including a lawsuit to stop the continued harassment. \n\nThis letter is relevant to CFPB supervision because it appears intended to deter the submission of consumer complaints and servicing dispute communications. I am exercising a lawful right to petition the government and to submit complaints to a federal agency. The XXXX Supreme Court has recognized the right to petition agencies as part of XXXX XXXX petitioning activity. California XXXX XXXX. Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ). Although the letter frames my complaints as harassment, it does not address the substance of the payment history anomalies described above, nor does it provide an account-level reconciliation that resolves the recurring suspense/unapplied cycling shown in XXXX own records. \n\nI request CFPB review of whether XXXX counsel communications, in context, function as an intimidation mechanism to suppress regulatory complaint activity instead of correcting or transparently explaining servicing practices. \n\nXXXX Governance and internal controls tie to XXXX XXXX leadership oversight XXXX  is owned by XXXX XXXX. XXXX public governance materials identify XXXX XXXX as XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX. When a regulated financial services enterprise responds to repeated consumer servicing disputes primarily with stop complaining or we may sue you, the compliance question becomes whether leadership and the board maintain adequate information-and-reporting systems and good-faith oversight over mission-critical consumer servicing, dispute handling, and compliance functions. \n\nDelaware fiduciary oversight doctrine recognizes liability exposure when there is an utter failure to implement or monitor a reasonable reporting system, or when known compliance risks are consciously disregarded. In re XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX. Ch. XXXX ) ; XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX. XXXX ). Delaware courts have emphasized mission-critical compliance oversight where core business risks demand board-level reporting and response. XXXX v. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX. XXXX ). The XXXX XXXX XXXX further illustrates that failure to ensure board-level reporting on mission-critical safety and compliance risks can state an oversight claim. In re The XXXX Co. XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX No. XXXX ( XXXX. Ch. XX/XX/XXXX ). \n\nI am not asking CFPB to adjudicate Delaware fiduciary law. I cite these authorities to show why it is unreasonable for a regulated servicer enterprise to treat repeated consumer dispute submissions as mere harassment while the underlying payment application mechanics remain unresolved, and why strong internal controls and compliance governance are expected at the corporate-owner level for a mortgage servicing platform. \n\nXXXX Requested relief XXXX. Require Shellpoint to provide a complete account-level reconciliation explaining each XXXX XXXX hold, each reversal, and each subsequent Regular Payment application for the disputed period, and whether any delinquency/late fees/collections/inspection triggers or credit reporting were generated while funds were in suspense. \nXXXX. Require XXXX  to identify the specific business rules/policies for suspense handling, reversal batching, and escrow-shortage treatment, and produce a written explanation that a borrower can audit. \nXXXX. Require XXXX  to confirm in writing that it will not threaten litigation or otherwise attempt to deter lawful CFPB complaint submissions, and that it will address specific asserted servicing errors in good faith rather than characterizin y as harassment. \nXXXX. XXXX this complaint for supervisory review if CFPB deems appropriate due to the apparent pattern of suspense-cycling and counsels attempt to chill complaint activity. \nXXXX. Refer Outside Counsel for disciplinary action XXXX XXXX petitioning to agencies : California XXXX XXXX. Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ). \nXXXX XXXX identification : XXXX investor governance renberg ). \nXXXX oversight : In re XXXX XXXX XXXX. Derivative Litig., XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX. Ch. XXXX ). \nXXXX XXXX XXXX standard : XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX. XXXX ). \nMission-critical oversight : XXXX v. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX. XXXX ). \nXXXX oversight pleading : In re The XXXX Co. XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX No. XXXX ( XXXX. Ch. XX/XX/XXXX ).","date_sent_to_company":"2026-02-19T20:44:24.000Z","issue":"Trouble during payment process","sub_product":"VA mortgage","zip_code":"37066","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"19632592","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Rithm Capital Corp.","date_received":"2026-02-19T19:49:45.000Z","state":"TN","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Payment process"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Delaware fiduciary oversight doctrine recognizes liability exposure when there is an utter failure to implement or monitor a reasonable reporting <em>system</em>, or when known <em>compliance</em> <em>risks</em> are consciously disregarded. In re XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX. Ch. XXXX ) ; XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX. XXXX ). Delaware courts have emphasized mission-critical <em>compliance</em> oversight where core business <em>risks</em> demand board-level reporting and response. XXXX v."]},"sort":[13.689208,"19632592"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7490204","_score":12.993876,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"Everyone has the right to a standard of living for health & well being including food, clothing, housing, medical care, and the right to security including protection from eviction. A Finra registered representative targeted my elderly relatives on a cruise ship, cold-calledthem at their residence, & gained control of their considerable assets in XXXX around the time he was very publicly dismissed from a firm in XXXX, RI for disrespecting his customers & the firm, and convinced them to transfer their funds to his mismanagement at another firm.Theregisteredrepresentativehad worked in a health club prior to his short tenure at the firm from which he was dismissed in XXXX, RI. He was no financial savant. My relatives weren't thetype of people to be satisfied with strictly retail financial services.After the intergenerational wealth transfer, whichhe expedited, theFinraregistered representative lost about {$300000.00} of my brother 's inheritance when he convinced my brother to puthisaccount on margin. My brother wasXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX of the XXXX XXXX XXXX in Washington XXXX DC, formost of his adult life. The Finra registered representative 's DUI arrest & subsequent coverup during the timeframe he waslosing much of my assets ( a {$300000.00} deposit from the sale of partial ownership of resort property justevaporated ), was not a coincidence. It's clear theregisteredrepresentative never missed a beat or a day at the office. \n\nHate crimes are a social problem because they directly marginalize and target specific people based on their identities. In XXXX prior to thesigning of the mortgage, I was physically assaulted, harassed, robbed & my property was vandalized, a seditiousconspiracyby right wing extremists. Records were quashed of an officer who abused me who was in a standoff in XXXX, RI where a swat team was brought in to diffuse the situation. I am autistic. A sophisticated investor is a classification of investor indicating someone who has sufficientcapital, experience, and net worth to engage in more advanced types of investment opportunities. In XXXX, I was ignorant of finance, which is not a crime, and had barely balanced a checkbook. I never had money of my own before theintergenerational wealth transfer. I was on my own for thefirst time in mylife & relied ontheregisteredrepresentative todothe right thing by me. At that point I didnot know whoto trust. I had no professional certifications, designations, or credentials. I didn't even have an income or credit history. I had never worked. Private offerings are available to investors with sufficient knowledge and experience to make them capable of evaluating the merits and risks of the prospectiveinvestments. A person is considered an accredited investor if they have a net worth exceeding XXXX XXXX dollars. I had {$1.00} XXXX. An accredited investor has the financial sophistication and capacity to take the high risk high reward path of investing in unregulated securitiessans certainprotections of the SEC and have reduced need for protection. High net worth individuals are allowed to buy unregistered securities. Private placements present a great deal of risk. Sophisticatedinvestors have access to private market opportunities not available to average, non-accredited investors subject to investment minimums. \n\nMy relationship with money hasn't always been easy but that doesn't mean it can't improve drastically.I pay with cash or by check. To this day I use neither credit or debit cards, I have none. I trade nothing. I am no longer being coerced. I now live by XXXX XXXX check to XXXX spousal benefit check. If you research the records youwill notice I used a credit card XXXX time in XXXX to buy my daughter a snowboard with a card that came with the wrap account from the broker dealer firm. Under mismanagement XXXX carriedhundreds of thousands of dollars of margin debt. I foundmy fortune reverted. Know your client. There were glaring conflicts of interest. I have been persisting without relief of an ending. It is time for closure. I haven't seen a single penny. You should never have all your capital in one place so you can live to fight another day. It goes without saying youshould never put a houseinto a margin account as the registeredrepresentative did tome. I am struggling to make sense of a world in which help is hard to come by.\n\nI was framed. There are people responsible for my plight.Those seeking to solve the problem are also causing it. It is a problem characterized by organized irresponsibility. It is a problem whose solution requires a great number of people to change their mindset & behavior.The preservation of life overrides any rule. I am in critical danger.My life is on the line.When times are tough you can throw your hands up and get angry or you can work hard & find solutions.I feel the whole system is rigged against me. Power is being deployed for specialends.The value function is steeper for losses. Out of court statements are untrustworthy. I never had money and then I did. I don't think the Finra Registered Representatives knew too much about the effect of what they were doing. It's a nice daily reminder we're all going through XXXX and it's going to take a lot of blood, sweat, & tears to fix it. The struggle carries on even though the case might end in defeat. There's a role to play in calling out where you perceive the problem to lie & suggesting a possible way forward and gaining some sense of agency. Life finds a way. In the rules of evidence there's an ancient document rule, an exception from the hearsayrules, out of court statements are untrustworthy and therefore inadmissible to prove the truth of their contents. I made arrangements to transfer the account out of the broker dealer because they scared me. When the account was transferred, after nearly 4 months, not 2 weeks, theholdingsin the margin account were rejected by the receiving broker for credit violations. The account was placed in margin deficit & subjected to forced liquidation resulting in an additional {$260000.00} loss on top of the {$400000.00} already lost. \n\nThe firm used audit by exception XXXX XXXX XXXX, Protegent Brokeraudit, web enabled suitability based exception reporting and analysis developed under guidelines of The Patriot Act and the Bank Security Act. XXXX of XXXX exception notices went unanswered. A former Head of XXXX The New York XXXX XXXX found this to be a red flag. If a system like this is in place to supervisory personnel looking for evidenceof compliance and suitability violations existing in accounts which violate patternsand trends to manage suspicious activity, what good is it if there is no one to follow through? From an internal control perspective automated reporting systems must have manual, sometimes automated, as in suspending a transaction for further examination. Without follow up, the control they are supposed to implement is rendered as an ineffective method of exception reporting if no one does anything about it. \n\nKnow your client is a suitabilityobligation. I never signed paperwork giving the registered representative full discretion.To this day I useneither credit or debit but while under mismanagement I often carriedhundredsof XXXX dollars of margin debt. Regarding his use of margin, if you lose XXXX of your money, like we did, you will need the market to double just to break even. If you are a seasoned investor who fully comprehends the risks, margin is fine. Margin presents a huge source of revenue for the brokerages. Margin accounts are risky and not for all investors. Leverage is a double-edged sword and increases risk in the portfolio. A dive of 50 % will cause you to lose more than 100 % with interest and commissions on top of that. It goes without saying you should never put the downpayment to a house in a margin account, like he did to us. Furthermore, I wonder why the registered representative sent me a margin agreement in XXXX when he had already been using margin for years, even after i told him to take me off margin, that I didn't like margin, & when I only inquired about margin to educate myself and heturned that inquiry into his cause celebre, a controversial one he hung his haton, to make me appear to be a 'sophisticated ' investor, a coverup. One third of the portfolio contained indeterminate, unspecified securities that the Rhode Island XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX & the RI Securities Regulator were unable to determine what they XXXX out of XXXX holdings.The account transferred with an open margin balance. The holdings were opaque and it was impossible for theDBR to determine the underlying investments. They only appeared legitimate. I truly believe they were disguised so they could be used without detection of the illegal activity which produced them and that the monetary proceeds were obtained through criminal activity and washed into funds with an apparent legal source. \n\nI was clearly taken advantage of by the broker-dealer inan intergenerationalwealth transfer gone horribly wrong. There was fraud. There were lies. There was deceit. There was a cover-up.From an internal control perspective, automated reporting systems must have manual ( sometimes automated, as in suspending a transaction for further examination ) follow up or the control they are supposed to implement is rendered ineffective. From an audit perspective, one can not cite such a system as an effective method of exception reporting if no one does anything about the exceptions. \n\nMembers of a white supremacist hate group coordinated a brutal racially motivated attack on me in XXXX prior to the mortgage signing. Theirmembers claim their ancestors conquered America & bequeathed it to them & no one else. Their little army iscalling for the formation of a white ethnostate. They are like a separate state withtheir own laws and justice system. I suffered physical injuries, significant emotional distress and continue to suffer to this day because of the incidents. Among other harms, those physical & emotional injuries have adversely affected my ability to earn a living. Myonly income ever was my long gone stock portfolio, the lifeof an XXXX who hasn't madeany money, yet.I am plagued by severe anxiety, mental anguish, intrusive thoughts, & emotional distress including persistent concern for my physical safety and loss of sleep. I routinely have nightmares & flashbacks. What happened to me was no accident. The vandalism did not occur in a vacuum, they defaced my property with impunity. The vandalism was an act of intimidation to make me feel unsafe. This case alleges civil rights violations, assault & battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress. I want to hold the perpetrators accountable for a pattern of intimidation and sendamessage thathatefulactivity will not be tolerated. History has shown that when left unchecked hateful activity will grow and escalate. For the situation to be brought to the highest good for all concerned requires change.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-09-02T14:15:57.000Z","issue":"Took or threatened to take negative or legal action","sub_product":"Mortgage debt","zip_code":"028XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7490204","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2023-09-02T14:06:08.000Z","state":"RI","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Seized or attempted to seize your property"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["If a <em>system</em> like this is in place to supervisory personnel looking for evidenceof <em>compliance</em> and suitability violations existing in accounts which violate patternsand trends to manage suspicious activity, what good is it if there is no one to follow through? From an <em>internal</em> control perspective automated reporting <em>systems</em> must have manual, sometimes automated, as in suspending a transaction for further examination."]},"sort":[12.993876,"7490204"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18660515","_score":12.98884,"_source":{"product":"Payday loan, title loan, personal loan, or advance loan","complaint_what_happened":"AFFIRM CREDIT-FURNISHING + DISPUTE-HANDLING FAILURE Transaction : XXXX XXXX Installments XXXX XXXX | Order # XXXX | Affirm Agreement ID XXXX Amount : {$430.00} | Purchase Date : XX/XX/XXXX | Dispute Opened : XX/XX/XXXX | Closed : XX/XX/XXXX XXXX Dispute opened + Affirms written representation of paused/ no delinquency reporting On XX/XX/XXXX I opened a billing dispute because the merchandise was materially not as described ( standard parallel to Visa Reason Code 13.3 ). That same day Affirm acknowledged in writing that payments were paused and that no negative credit reporting would occur while the dispute was pending. Such a representation creates a reasonable reliance expectation under CFPB XXXX XXXX and FTC Deceptive-Practices standards ( see FTC XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) ) XXXX \n\n\n\n2 Repeated evidence submission + failure to specify criteria Between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX I submitted photos, screenshots, and product comparisons through XXXX XXXX and via email. Affirm never identified what specific items were needed to satisfy its sufficiency standard, in violation of the transparency principles articulated in XXXX XXXX Credit Bureau XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ) ( a furnisher can not claim to have conducted a reasonable investigation when it fails to identify the information necessary to resolve the dispute ). This failure destroyed the consumers ability to rebut merchant claims with clarity or finality. \n\n\n\nXXXX Insufficient evidence closure without verifiable basis On XX/XX/XXXX Affirm closed the dispute for insufficient evidence without : a reasons list, the merchant evidence packet, identification of records reviewed and facts relied upon, or an auditable decision trail ( timestamps, reviewer identity, internal codes ). \n\nThis denial methodology contradicts the standard of a reasonable reinvestigation under 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) and the competence requirement of 1681i ( a ) ( see XXXX v. XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ) a reasonable investigation requires obtaining and reviewing underlying records supporting the dispute ). \n\n\n\nXXXX Escalation and adverse furnishing despite active dispute and prior warning After closure, Affirm sent collection-escalation communications threatening charge-off and third-party collection within days while the account remained disputed. Affirm then furnished derogatory information to consumer reporting agencies. \n\nKey fact : Before the negative reporting occurred I warned Affirm in writing that the account remained in active dispute and that reporting it as delinquent would constitute knowing furnishing of inaccurate information. Affirm ignored that notice and furnished anyway. \n\nThat conduct triggers 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ( knowingly furnishing inaccurate data ) and 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 3 ) ( failure to flag disputed information ), and has been held to constitute bad faith in cases such as XXXX XXXX XXXX & XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) and XXXX v. XXXX & XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ), where continued negative reporting of disputed accounts was found to violate the FCRAs good-faith investigation duty. \n\nAffirms decision to furnish derogatory status after explicit warning constitutes willful non-compliance under XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) ( intent established by reckless disregard for statutory obligations ). \n\n\n\nXXXX Missing native audit artifacts that determine accuracy A lawful investigation would produce the following records : complete merchant evidence packet, internal dispute logs and decision codes ( who, what, when ), audit trail of system status changes, and furnishing history ( XXXX fields, dispute indicator XXXX XXXX  exchange ). \n\nAffirm has produced none of these. Failure to retain or disclose these materials violates the record-preservation expectations outlined in CFPB XXXX XXXX and precludes verification of reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy required by 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ). When a furnisher can not produce the records underlying its certification of accuracy, the presumption of accuracy collapses ( see XXXX v. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ) ). \n\n\n\nXXXX Statutory framework violated ( collective summary ) 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) Furnishing information known to be inaccurate.\n\n1681s-2 ( a ) ( 3 ) Failure to flag account as in dispute.\n\n1681s-2 ( b ) Failure to conduct a reasonable investigation after notice of dispute.\n\n1681e ( b ) Failure to maintain reasonable procedures for maximum possible accuracy.\n\n1681n / 1681o Willful and negligent non-compliance damages standards. \nCFPB Circular XXXX Inadequate dispute investigations violate FCRA and XXXX. \nXXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX investigation requirements under XXXX XXXX. \n\n\n\nXXXX Pattern and practice risk Affirms practice of closing consumer disputes without reason codes, failing to produce merchant packets, and furnishing derogatory status while claiming paused billing suggests a systemic deficiency in its FCRA and XXXX compliance programs ( see In re EOS XXXX, CFPB No. XXXX {$2.00} XXXX penalty for similar failures ). The same factual pattern dispute open, negative reporting continued, no records preserved has been repeatedly cited by CFPB as unfair and deceptive under 12 U.S.C. 5531.\n\n8 Conclusion Affirm made a clear representation that payments were paused and no negative credit reporting would occur during the dispute. I relied on that representation in good faith. Affirm then reversed its own position, denied the dispute without verifiable records, and furnished derogatory information after explicit warning that the account remained disputed. Those acts demonstrate a knowing or reckless disregard for statutory duties, satisfying the willfulness standard under XXXX. The record failures alone establish that Affirms investigation can not be deemed reasonable or conducted in good faith. \n\n\n\nThis submission therefore raises potential violations of the FCRA ( 1681s-2 ( a ), ( b ), ( e ) ), CFPA ( 12 U.S.C. 5531-5536 ), and Regulation V ( 12 C.F.R. 1022.43 ), and warrants supervisory review for systemic furnisher misconduct.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-01-12T20:40:05.000Z","issue":"Problem when making payments","sub_product":"Installment loan","zip_code":"646XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18660515","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Affirm Holdings, Inc","date_received":"2026-01-12T19:46:02.000Z","state":"MO","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["XXXX Missing native <em>audit</em> artifacts that determine accuracy A lawful investigation would produce the following records : complete merchant evidence packet, <em>internal</em> dispute logs and decision codes ( who, what, when ), <em>audit</em> trail of <em>system</em> status changes, and furnishing history ( XXXX fields, dispute indicator XXXX XXXX  exchange ). \n\nAffirm has produced none of these."]},"sort":[12.98884,"18660515"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"19694567","_score":12.706186,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX. Complainant Identification and Household Financial Structure This dispute involves XXXX XXXX, the primary cardholder for the Citi Double Cash account ending in XXXX, and XXXX XXXX, the authorized user. To maintain rigorous financial oversight, the household operates under a \" Household Purchasing Protocol '' where XXXX XXXX serves as the administrative lead for most online purchases. In this capacity, she is responsible for the execution of purchases, shipment tracking, and the management of all merchant and financial institution correspondence. XXXX XXXX provides the primary credit facility and receives official bank-side notifications, which are then triaged by XXXX XXXX for compliance with the household budget and logistics. \n\nXXXX. Chronological Account of Concurrent Transactions In XX/XX/year>, the household sought to purchase two patio heaters. Due to a highly similar user interface and identical pricing between two separate vendors, two transactions occurred. The complexity of these transactions was exacerbated by the fact that the complainants were already actively managing a dispute investigation for the first PENDING transaction ( XXXX XXXX  ) as of XX/XX/year>, creating a heightened risk for bank-side clerical errors. \n\nComparison of Initial Transactions : Transaction Date Merchant Name Order Number Amount Product XX/XX/year> XXXX XXXX # XXXX {$350.00} 2 Pamapic Patio Heaters XX/XX/year> XXXX XXXX # XXXX {$350.00} 2 Pamapic Patio Heaters As evidenced by source correspondence, the identical price point ( {$350.00} ) and identical merchant layouts provided XXXX XXXX evidence for potential transaction confusionconfusion that Citi 's internal systems ultimately failed to navigate. \n\n3. Timeline of Merchant-Side Issues ( XXXX XXXX  vs. XXXX XXXX ) The XXXX orders followed divergent paths, which we tracked meticulously. \n\nXXXX XXXX  ( Order # XXXX ) Timeline : XX/XX/year> : Order # XXXX placed for 2 Pamapic Patio Heaters. \nXX/XX/year> : Merchant notifies us the item is out of stock and the order is canceled ; we filed a dispute for the pending charge with Citi. \nXX/XX/year> : Citi sends confirmation that an investigation has been initiated for the {$350.00} XXXX XXXX  pending transaction. \nXX/XX/year> : Merchant confirms a refund will be processed within XXXX business days. \nXX/XX/year> : Citi sends a \" Custom Alert '' confirming the XXXX XXXX  transaction was canceled and would not post. \n\nXXXX XXXX ( Order # XXXX ) Timeline : XX/XX/year> : Order # XXXX placed for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. \nXX/XX/year> : Merchant adds a note stating the order is \" on the way. '' XXXX. Primary Evidence of Bank-Side Error : Citi \" Custom Alert '' ( XX/XX/year> ) The \" smoking XXXX '' in this dispute is a formal, written notification received from XXXX on XX/XX/year>, at XXXX AM CT. This communication provided an unequivocal directive to us that the XXXX XXXX transaction had been canceled, \" The {$350.00} pending transaction has been canceled and won't post to your Citi XXXX XXXX account ... Merchant/Description : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX '' Crucially, the footer of this email contains Citis own internal audit trail, a unique digital fingerprint of the bank 's communication : XXXX XXXX XXXX. This notification constituted a definitive bank-side instruction upon which we were entitled to rely. \n\n5. Detrimental Reliance and Replacement Purchase Under the doctrine of \" Detrimental Reliance, '' we acted in good faith based on the banks official statement that the XXXX XXXX order was void. To mitigate the loss of the canceled items and fulfill the household need, XXXX XXXX immediately secured replacements from a different vendor. \n\nWithin precisely XXXX minutes of receiving the Bank 's official cancellation notice ( XXXX AM ) to XXXX, XXXX mitigated their perceived loss by purchasing replacements. XXXX XXXX placed XXXX order # XXXX on XX/XX/year>, at XXXX PM for 2 East Oak Patio Heaters totaling {$220.00}. \n\n6. Bad Faith Refusal to Review Evidence ( XX/XX/year> ) Upon discovering that the XXXX XXXX charge had posted in direct contradiction to the bank 's written notice, XXXX XXXX contacted Citi support via chat. This interaction with agent \" XXXX '' represents a systemic failure of Citis internal communication logs and a bad faith refusal to acknowledge physical evidence. \nRefusal to Verify : XXXX XXXX explicitly stated, \" I checked and see that no such communication was sent on XX/XX/XXXX. '' Contradiction of Physical Evidence : The agent insisted only the XXXX XXXX cancellation existed. Even after providing the exact internal audit code ( XXXX... ) and verified the sender as XXXX, the agent refused to investigate the specific internal tracking number which could have resolved the issue then and there. \nBarrier to Resolution : The agent stated, \" We do not have the option to accept incoming email, '' effectively blocking me from providing the \" XXXX  XXXX '' evidence that would have resolved the clerical error immediately. \nMischaracterization of Dispute : While the agent attempted to pivot the issue toward the merchant, I clearly stated, \" my dispute is not with the merchant '' and corrected the agent 's confusion regarding the charges. I argued the financial injury was caused by Citi 's instruction that the charge was canceled, which triggered the second purchase. \n\n7. Dispute Denial and Final Financial Injury Following the bank 's failure to acknowledge its clerical error, we attempted to return the duplicate items to the merchant. On XX/XX/year>, XXXX XXXX refused the return, stating they only accept returns for incorrect items and the order \" does not meet the conditions for a return. '' On XX/XX/year>, I, XXXX, provided a Response to Citi 's Request for Additional Information for Dispute ID XXXX, with multiple attachments explaining the issue. \n\nOn XX/XX/year>, Citi formally denied the dispute ( Case ID : XXXX ). In their denial letter, Citi claimed the facts did not support a billing error and instructed us to \" contact the merchant directly. '' This represents a failure to address the core issue : the consumer 's loss was not caused by a merchant error, but by detrimental reliance on an erroneous bank notification.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-02-23T01:51:33.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"75050","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"19694567","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CITIBANK, N.A.","date_received":"2026-02-23T00:17:43.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Merchant/Description : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX '' Crucially, the footer of this email contains Citis own <em>internal</em> <em>audit</em> trail, a unique digital fingerprint of the bank 's communication : XXXX XXXX XXXX. This notification constituted a definitive bank-side instruction upon which we were entitled to rely. \n\n5."]},"sort":[12.706186,"19694567"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"11071986","_score":12.069965,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX, FL XXXX XX/XX/XXXX To : Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) Equifax Information Services LLC XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX \nXXXX XXXX Subject : Urgent Demand for Removal of Unauthorized Accounts and Violations of Federal Law Equifax has demonstrated a clear failure to maintain consistency and transparency in its handling of your dispute, further compounding the harm caused by its already unlawful practices. On one hand, Equifax sent written correspondence stating that your disputes were deemed frivolous because they were previously verified or lacked new relevant information. Yet, when you called Equifaxs representatives, they contradicted this claim by asserting that the FTC report you submitted, along with other supporting documents, was invalid or not reflected in their system. This blatant inconsistency in communication highlights systemic negligence, internal disorganization, and possibly intentional efforts to delay or obstruct dispute resolution. \n\nKey Issues with Equifaxs Contradictions 1. Misleading Written Statements : The letter implied that your disputes were frivolous, suggesting there was no new information to warrant further investigation. However, the supporting documentation you submitted, including proof of identification, proof of address, and the FTC Identity Theft Report, satisfies the requirements under 15 U.S.C. 1681c-2 for blocking disputed items. \n2. Disregard of Submitted Documents : Equifaxs claim during your phone call that the FTC report was invalid reflects either a failure to properly process submitted documents or intentional misrepresentation of its obligations under federal law. \n3. Obstruction of Consumer Rights : The conflicting statements prevent you from effectively resolving the dispute and exercising your rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). By sending contradictory information, Equifax undermines its obligation to provide a clear and efficient dispute resolution process. \n4. Possible Profit-Driven Motives : The delays caused by these contradictory statements may be a tactic to continue profiting from unauthorized or inaccurate information on your credit report, as credit reporting agencies often benefit financially from retaining more data on consumers. \n5. Violation of FCRA Procedures : According to 15 U.S.C. 1681i, Equifax must conduct a reasonable reinvestigation of disputed information and can not arbitrarily declare disputes frivolous, especially when documentation is provided. \n\nLegal and Regulatory Implications 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) : Equifax must ensure maximum possible accuracy of the information on your credit report. Failing to process valid disputes and providing contradictory information violates this mandate. \n15 U.S.C. 1681n : Willful noncompliance with the FCRA exposes Equifax to statutory, actual, and punitive damages. \nSection 5 ( a ) of the FTC Act : Misleading consumers through contradictory communication may constitute unfair and deceptive practices, subject to enforcement by the Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ). \nConsumer Financial Protection Act ( 12 U.S.C. 5536 ) : Equifaxs actions may violate the prohibition against unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices ( UDAAP ). \n\nDemand for Accountability Equifaxs inability to provide consistent and accurate information underscores a broader systemic failure within its dispute resolution processes. I will not tolerate the continued violation of my rights. Your contradictory communications must be resolved, and the following actions must be taken immediately : 1. Remove all unauthorized accounts and information in compliance with 15 U.S.C. 1681c-2.\n\n2. Provide a written explanation reconciling the discrepancies between your written and verbal statements.\n\n3. Implement internal compliance measures to prevent similar occurrences in the future. \n\n\n\n\n\nTo Whom It May Concern, This formal complaint demands the immediate removal of unauthorized accounts and inaccurate information from my consumer report. Despite my compliance with all legal requirements under FCRA 15 U.S.C. 1681c-2 ( Section 605C2 ), these accounts remain unlawfully reported. Furthermore, I have IRS-confirmed evidence of Form 1099-C cancellation for the debts associated with these accounts, proving they are no longer valid or collectible. \nThe fact that these canceled accounts remain on my report, despite their resolution with the IRS, demonstrates not only your noncompliance with federal law but also a potential fraudulent financial intent. If these items are not promptly removed, I reserve the right to report your continued actions to the IRS under their whistleblower program, as the profit gained from unauthorized reporting constitutes tax fraud and abuse. \nAccounts to Be Removed Immediately XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Violations of Federal Law and Additional Actions : 1. FCRA 15 U.S.C. 1681c-2 : All disputed information must be blocked within four ( 4 ) business days upon submission of proper documentation. Despite fulfilling all requirements, including FTC Identity Theft Report, identification, and proof of address, these accounts remain unblocked.\n\n2. IRS Reporting Requirements : The debts associated with the accounts above have been canceled via Form 1099-C and accepted by the IRS. Continuing to report these accounts as valid debts constitutes a misrepresentation of their status. Additionally, this behavior indicates potential violations of tax laws if these debts are used for financial gain or inaccurate reporting purposes.\n\n3. Fraudulent Intent and Misrepresentation : By retaining and profiting from inaccurate and unauthorized information, your actions may violate 18 U.S.C. 1962 ( RICO ) and 18 U.S.C. 894 ( Extortionate Credit Practices ).\n\n4. Whistleblower and Audit Risk : If this noncompliance persists, I will report your activities to the IRS for further investigation and audit. The whistleblower program rewards accurate reporting of tax fraud and abuse, which includes the exploitation of consumer data for monetary gain.\n\n5. Breach of Consumer Rights : Your failure to remove canceled debts constitutes ongoing harm to my financial reputation, with severe consequences for your compliance with 15 U.S.C. 1681b and Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act protections. \nImmediate Demands : 1. Immediate Removal of All Accounts Listed : All canceled debts and unauthorized accounts must be removed from my credit report within seven ( 7 ) business days of receiving this notice.\n\n2. Written Confirmation of Compliance : Provide written confirmation that these accounts have been permanently removed and will not be re-reported.\n\n3. IRS Whistleblower Avoidance : Take corrective action immediately to avoid being reported for fraudulent financial practices and unauthorized profit from canceled debts. \nConclusion : Equifax, XXXX, and XXXX continued failure to comply with federal law is a direct attack on my financial stability and consumer rights. I have met all requirements under 15 U.S.C. 1681c-2, and the additional inclusion of 1099-C evidence further cements that these accounts have no basis for continued reporting. \nThis is your final opportunity to resolve this matter. Failure to comply will result in further escalations, including filing whistleblower complaints with the IRS and pursuing legal remedies for damages under the FCRA, CFPB regulations, and RICO statutes.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-12-10T15:45:53.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"33993","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"11071986","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2024-12-08T22:45:04.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Whistleblower and <em>Audit</em> <em>Risk</em> : If this noncompliance persists, I will report your activities to the IRS for further investigation and <em>audit</em>. The whistleblower program rewards accurate reporting of tax fraud and abuse, which includes the exploitation of consumer data for monetary gain.\n\n5."]},"sort":[12.069965,"11071986"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"11071614","_score":12.035157,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, FL XXXX XX/XX/XXXX To : Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX \nTransUnion LLC Subject : Urgent Demand for Removal of Unauthorized Accounts and Violations of Federal Law XXXX  has demonstrated a clear failure to maintain consistency and transparency in its handling of your dispute, further compounding the harm caused by its already unlawful practices. On one hand, XXXX sent written correspondence stating that your disputes were deemed frivolous because they were previously verified or lacked new relevant information. Yet, when you called XXXX representatives, they contradicted this claim by asserting that the FTC report you submitted, along with other supporting documents, was invalid or not reflected in their system. This blatant inconsistency in communication highlights systemic negligence, internal disorganization, and possibly intentional efforts to delay or obstruct dispute resolution. \n\nKey Issues with XXXX Contradictions 1. Misleading Written Statements : The letter implied that your disputes were frivolous, suggesting there was no new information to warrant further investigation. However, the supporting documentation you submitted, including proof of identification, proof of address, and the FTC Identity Theft Report, satisfies the requirements under 15 U.S.C. 1681c-2 for blocking disputed items. \n2. Disregard of Submitted Documents : XXXX  claim during your phone call that the FTC report was invalid reflects either a failure to properly process submitted documents or intentional misrepresentation of its obligations under federal law. \nXXXX. Obstruction of Consumer Rights : The conflicting statements prevent you from effectively resolving the dispute and exercising your rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). By sending contradictory information, XXXX undermines its obligation to provide a clear and efficient dispute resolution process. \n4. Possible Profit-Driven Motives : The delays caused by these contradictory statements may be a tactic to continue profiting from unauthorized or inaccurate information on your credit report, as credit reporting agencies often benefit financially from retaining more data on consumers. \n5. Violation of FCRA Procedures : According to 15 U.S.C. 1681i, XXXX must conduct a reasonable reinvestigation of disputed information and can not arbitrarily declare disputes frivolous, especially when documentation is provided. \n\nLegal and Regulatory Implications 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) : XXXX must ensure maximum possible accuracy of the information on your credit report. Failing to process valid disputes and providing contradictory information violates this mandate. \n15 U.S.C. 1681n : Willful noncompliance with the FCRA exposes XXXX to statutory, actual, and punitive damages. \nSection 5 ( a ) of the FTC Act : Misleading consumers through contradictory communication may constitute unfair and deceptive practices, subject to enforcement by the Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ). \nConsumer Financial Protection Act ( 12 U.S.C. 5536 ) : XXXX actions may violate the prohibition against unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices ( UDAAP ). \n\nDemand for Accountability XXXX  inability to provide consistent and accurate information underscores a broader systemic failure within its dispute resolution processes. I will not tolerate the continued violation of my rights. Your contradictory communications must be resolved, and the following actions must be taken immediately : 1. Remove all unauthorized accounts and information in compliance with 15 U.S.C. 1681c-2.\n\n2. Provide a written explanation reconciling the discrepancies between your written and verbal statements.\n\n3. Implement internal compliance measures to prevent similar occurrences in the future. \n\n\n\n\n\nTo Whom It May Concern, This formal complaint demands the immediate removal of unauthorized accounts and inaccurate information from my consumer report. Despite my compliance with all legal requirements under FCRA 15 U.S.C. 1681c-2 ( Section 605C2 ), these accounts remain unlawfully reported. Furthermore, I have IRS-confirmed evidence of Form 1099-C cancellation for the debts associated with these accounts, proving they are no longer valid or collectible. \nThe fact that these canceled accounts remain on my report, despite their resolution with the IRS, demonstrates not only your noncompliance with federal law but also a potential fraudulent financial intent. If these items are not promptly removed, I reserve the right to report your continued actions to the IRS under their whistleblower program, as the profit gained from unauthorized reporting constitutes tax fraud and abuse. \nAccounts to Be Removed Immediately : XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  : Account XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : Account XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX : Account XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX : Account XXXX XXXX. XXXXXXXX XXXX : Account XXXX Violations of Federal Law and Additional Actions : 1. FCRA 15 U.S.C. 1681c-2 : All disputed information must be blocked within four ( 4 ) business days upon submission of proper documentation. Despite fulfilling all requirements, including FTC Identity Theft Report, identification, and proof of address, these accounts remain unblocked.\n\n2. IRS Reporting Requirements : The debts associated with the accounts above have been canceled via Form 1099-C and accepted by the IRS. Continuing to report these accounts as valid debts constitutes a misrepresentation of their status. Additionally, this behavior indicates potential violations of tax laws if these debts are used for financial gain or inaccurate reporting purposes.\n\n3. Fraudulent Intent and Misrepresentation : By retaining and profiting from inaccurate and unauthorized information, your actions may violate 18 U.S.C. 1962 ( RICO ) and 18 U.S.C. 894 ( Extortionate Credit Practices ).\n\n4. Whistleblower and Audit Risk : If this noncompliance persists, I will report your activities to the IRS for further investigation and audit. The whistleblower program rewards accurate reporting of tax fraud and abuse, which includes the exploitation of consumer data for monetary gain.\n\n5. Breach of Consumer Rights : Your failure to remove canceled debts constitutes ongoing harm to my financial reputation, with severe consequences for your compliance with 15 U.S.C. 1681b and Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act protections. \nImmediate Demands : 1. Immediate Removal of All Accounts Listed : All canceled debts and unauthorized accounts must be removed from my credit report within seven ( 7 ) business days of receiving this notice. \n2. Written Confirmation of Compliance : Provide written confirmation that these accounts have been permanently removed and will not be re-reported. \n3. IRS Whistleblower Avoidance : Take corrective action immediately to avoid being reported for fraudulent financial practices and unauthorized profit from canceled debts. \nConclusion : XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX continued failure to comply with federal law is a direct attack on my financial stability and consumer rights. I have met all requirements under 15 U.S.C. 1681c-2, and the additional inclusion of 1099-C evidence further cements that these accounts have no basis for continued reporting. \nThis is your final opportunity to resolve this matter. Failure to comply will result in further escalations, including filing whistleblower complaints with the IRS and pursuing legal remedies for damages under the FCRA, CFPB regulations, and RICO statutes.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-12-10T15:46:25.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"33993","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"11071614","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2024-12-08T23:14:17.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Whistleblower and <em>Audit</em> <em>Risk</em> : If this noncompliance persists, I will report your activities to the IRS for further investigation and <em>audit</em>. The whistleblower program rewards accurate reporting of tax fraud and abuse, which includes the exploitation of consumer data for monetary gain.\n\n5."]},"sort":[12.035157,"11071614"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"11071659","_score":12.013205,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, FL XXXX XX/XX/XXXX To : Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX Experian Information Solutions , Inc . \nXXXX XXXX Subject : Urgent Demand for Removal of Unauthorized Accounts and Violations of Federal Law XXXX  has demonstrated a clear failure to maintain consistency and transparency in its handling of your dispute, further compounding the harm caused by its already unlawful practices. On one hand, XXXX sent written correspondence stating that your disputes were deemed frivolous because they were previously verified or lacked new relevant information. Yet, when you called XXXX representatives, they contradicted this claim by asserting that the FTC report you submitted, along with other supporting documents, was invalid or not reflected in their system. This blatant inconsistency in communication highlights systemic negligence, internal disorganization, and possibly intentional efforts to delay or obstruct dispute resolution. \n\nKey Issues with XXXX Contradictions 1. Misleading Written Statements : The letter implied that your disputes were frivolous, suggesting there was no new information to warrant further investigation. However, the supporting documentation you submitted, including proof of identification, proof of address, and the FTC Identity Theft Report, satisfies the requirements under 15 U.S.C. 1681c-2 for blocking disputed items. \n2. Disregard of Submitted Documents : XXXX  claim during your phone call that the FTC report was invalid reflects either a failure to properly process submitted documents or intentional misrepresentation of its obligations under federal law. \n3. Obstruction of Consumer Rights : The conflicting statements prevent you from effectively resolving the dispute and exercising your rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). By sending contradictory information, XXXX undermines its obligation to provide a clear and efficient dispute resolution process. \n4. Possible Profit-Driven Motives : The delays caused by these contradictory statements may be a tactic to continue profiting from unauthorized or inaccurate information on your credit report, as credit reporting agencies often benefit financially from retaining more data on consumers. \n5. Violation of FCRA Procedures : According to 15 U.S.C. 1681i, XXXX must conduct a reasonable reinvestigation of disputed information and can not arbitrarily declare disputes frivolous, especially when documentation is provided. \n\nLegal and Regulatory Implications 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) : XXXX must ensure maximum possible accuracy of the information on your credit report. Failing to process valid disputes and providing contradictory information violates this mandate. \n15 U.S.C. 1681n : Willful noncompliance with the FCRA exposes XXXX to statutory, actual, and punitive damages. \nSection 5 ( a ) of the FTC Act : Misleading consumers through contradictory communication may constitute unfair and deceptive practices, subject to enforcement by the Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ). \nConsumer Financial Protection Act ( 12 U.S.C. 5536 ) : XXXX actions may violate the prohibition against unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices ( UDAAP ). \n\nDemand for Accountability XXXX  inability to provide consistent and accurate information underscores a broader systemic failure within its dispute resolution processes. I will not tolerate the continued violation of my rights. Your contradictory communications must be resolved, and the following actions must be taken immediately : 1. Remove all unauthorized accounts and information in compliance with 15 U.S.C. 1681c-2.\n\n2. Provide a written explanation reconciling the discrepancies between your written and verbal statements.\n\n3. Implement internal compliance measures to prevent similar occurrences in the future. \n\n\n\n\n\nTo Whom It May Concern, This formal complaint demands the immediate removal of unauthorized accounts and inaccurate information from my consumer report. Despite my compliance with all legal requirements under FCRA 15 U.S.C. 1681c-2 ( Section 605C2 ), these accounts remain unlawfully reported. Furthermore, I have IRS-confirmed evidence of Form 1099-C cancellation for the debts associated with these accounts, proving they are no longer valid or collectible. \nThe fact that these canceled accounts remain on my report, despite their resolution with the IRS, demonstrates not only your noncompliance with federal law but also a potential fraudulent financial intent. If these items are not promptly removed, I reserve the right to report your continued actions to the IRS under their whistleblower program, as the profit gained from unauthorized reporting constitutes tax fraud and abuse. \nAccounts to Be Removed Immediately : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Violations of Federal Law and Additional Actions : 1. FCRA 15 U.S.C. 1681c-2 : All disputed information must be blocked within four ( 4 ) business days upon submission of proper documentation. Despite fulfilling all requirements, including FTC Identity Theft Report, identification, and proof of address, these accounts remain unblocked.\n\n2. IRS Reporting Requirements : The debts associated with the accounts above have been canceled via Form 1099-C and accepted by the IRS. Continuing to report these accounts as valid debts constitutes a misrepresentation of their status. Additionally, this behavior indicates potential violations of tax laws if these debts are used for financial gain or inaccurate reporting purposes.\n\n3. Fraudulent Intent and Misrepresentation : By retaining and profiting from inaccurate and unauthorized information, your actions may violate 18 U.S.C. 1962 ( RICO ) and 18 U.S.C. 894 ( Extortionate Credit Practices ).\n\n4. Whistleblower and Audit Risk : If this noncompliance persists, I will report your activities to the IRS for further investigation and audit. The whistleblower program rewards accurate reporting of tax fraud and abuse, which includes the exploitation of consumer data for monetary gain.\n\n5. Breach of Consumer Rights : Your failure to remove canceled debts constitutes ongoing harm to my financial reputation, with severe consequences for your compliance with 15 U.S.C. 1681b and Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act protections. \nImmediate Demands : 1. Immediate Removal of All Accounts Listed : All canceled debts and unauthorized accounts must be removed from my credit report within seven ( 7 ) business days of receiving this notice. \n2. Written Confirmation of Compliance : Provide written confirmation that these accounts have been permanently removed and will not be re-reported. \n3. IRS Whistleblower Avoidance : Take corrective action immediately to avoid being reported for fraudulent financial practices and unauthorized profit from canceled debts. \nConclusion : XXXX, Experian, and XXXX continued failure to comply with federal law is a direct attack on my financial stability and consumer rights. I have met all requirements under 15 U.S.C. 1681c-2, and the additional inclusion of 1099-C evidence further cements that these accounts have no basis for continued reporting. \nThis is your final opportunity to resolve this matter. Failure to comply will result in further escalations, including filing whistleblower complaints with the IRS and pursuing legal remedies for damages under the FCRA, CFPB regulations, and RICO statutes.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-12-10T15:47:03.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"33993","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"11071659","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2024-12-08T23:14:17.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Whistleblower and <em>Audit</em> <em>Risk</em> : If this noncompliance persists, I will report your activities to the IRS for further investigation and <em>audit</em>. The whistleblower program rewards accurate reporting of tax fraud and abuse, which includes the exploitation of consumer data for monetary gain.\n\n5."]},"sort":[12.013205,"11071659"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":60,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":60}]}},"product":{"doc_count":60,"product":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":20,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":19},{"key":"Other personal consumer report","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Mortgage","doc_count":12,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"VA mortgage","doc_count":8},{"key":"Conventional home mortgage","doc_count":3},{"key":"FHA mortgage","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Checking or savings account","doc_count":8,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Checking account","doc_count":6},{"key":"Other banking product or service","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Debt collection","doc_count":8,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"I do not know","doc_count":3},{"key":"Mortgage debt","doc_count":3},{"key":"Credit card debt","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","doc_count":4,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"International money transfer","doc_count":2},{"key":"Domestic (US) money transfer","doc_count":1},{"key":"Mobile or digital wallet","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Credit card","doc_count":2,"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":2}]}},{"key":"Payday loan, title loan, personal loan, or advance loan","doc_count":2,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Installment loan","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Debt or credit management","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Student loan debt relief","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Student loan","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Federal student loan servicing","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Vehicle loan or lease","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Lease","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"issue":{"doc_count":60,"issue":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Trouble during payment process","doc_count":10,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Payment process","doc_count":8},{"key":"Loan sold or transferred to another company","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Incorrect information on your report","doc_count":9,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Information belongs to someone else","doc_count":9}]}},{"key":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","doc_count":9,"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":8},{"key":"Difficulty submitting a dispute or getting information about a dispute over the phone","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Managing an account","doc_count":6,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Banking errors","doc_count":3},{"key":"Funds not handled or disbursed as instructed","doc_count":2},{"key":"Problem using a debit or ATM card","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","doc_count":5,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Debt is not yours","doc_count":3},{"key":"Debt was result of identity theft","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Other transaction problem","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Closing an account","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Company closed your account","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Closing on a mortgage","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closing disclosure or other related disclosures","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Credit monitoring or identity theft protection services","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Billing dispute for services","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Dealing with your lender or servicer","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Problem with customer service","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"False statements or representation","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Told you not to respond to a lawsuit they filed against you","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Fees or interest","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Problem with fees","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Fraud or scam","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Getting the loan","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Improper use of your report","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Reporting company used your report improperly","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem when making payments","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing issue","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Difficulty submitting a dispute or getting information about a dispute over the phone","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a lender or other company charging your account","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Can't stop withdrawals from your account","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Struggling to pay mortgage","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"An existing modification, forbearance plan, short sale, or other loss mitigation relief","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Struggling to pay your loan","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Lender trying to repossess or disable the vehicle","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Took or threatened to take negative or legal action","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Seized or attempted to seize your property","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Unauthorized transactions or other transaction problem","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Unauthorized withdrawals or charges","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Written notification about debt","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Didn't receive notice of right to dispute","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"timely":{"doc_count":60,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":60}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":60,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":49},{"key":"Closed with non-monetary relief","doc_count":10},{"key":"Closed with monetary relief","doc_count":1}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":60,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":60}]}},"company":{"doc_count":60,"company":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Shellpoint Partners, LLC","doc_count":7},{"key":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","doc_count":5},{"key":"EQUIFAX, INC.","doc_count":5},{"key":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","doc_count":5},{"key":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","doc_count":5},{"key":"Block, Inc.","doc_count":2},{"key":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":2},{"key":"CITIBANK, N.A.","doc_count":2},{"key":"LEXISNEXIS","doc_count":2},{"key":"Nelnet, Inc.","doc_count":2},{"key":"Paypal Holdings, Inc","doc_count":2},{"key":"Rithm Capital Corp.","doc_count":2},{"key":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","doc_count":2},{"key":"ALCAR INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Affirm Holdings, Inc","doc_count":1},{"key":"Atlantic Union Bankshares, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Byrider Franchising, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"CITIZENS FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"CORELOGIC INC","doc_count":1},{"key":"Chime Financial Inc","doc_count":1},{"key":"Early Warning Services, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"Guild Holdings Company","doc_count":1},{"key":"Halsted Financial Services, LLC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"National Credit Systems,Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Navient Solutions, LLC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"PENNYMAC LOAN SERVICES, LLC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"PNC Bank N.A.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Resurgent Capital Services L.P.","doc_count":1},{"key":"UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"ZWICKER & ASSOCIATES","doc_count":1}]}},"state":{"doc_count":60,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"TN","doc_count":8},{"key":"MO","doc_count":7},{"key":"CA","doc_count":5},{"key":"LA","doc_count":5},{"key":"MI","doc_count":5},{"key":"TX","doc_count":5},{"key":"FL","doc_count":4},{"key":"GA","doc_count":4},{"key":"PA","doc_count":3},{"key":"NJ","doc_count":2},{"key":"NY","doc_count":2},{"key":"RI","doc_count":2},{"key":"DC","doc_count":1},{"key":"IN","doc_count":1},{"key":"MA","doc_count":1},{"key":"MS","doc_count":1},{"key":"NC","doc_count":1},{"key":"SC","doc_count":1},{"key":"SD","doc_count":1},{"key":"VA","doc_count":1}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":60,"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":27},{"key":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","doc_count":2}]}},"tags":{"doc_count":60,"tags":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Servicemember","doc_count":20}]}}},"_meta":{"license":"CC0","last_updated":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","last_indexed":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","total_record_count":16441818,"is_data_stale":false,"has_data_issue":false,"break_points":{"2":[12.013205,"11071659"],"3":[7.240442,"3357398"]}}}