{"took":73,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":39,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13688258","_score":19.770779,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"I am writing to formally file a joint complaint to both the Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ) and the Securities and Exchange Commission ( SEC ) concerning C\n\noncora Credit, a company that is demanding consumers send them sensitive personal informationspecifically, a physical copy of their Social Security cardunder troubling and opaque circumstances. Concora Credit initially communicates via mailed letters that request a copy of a government-issued photo ID and a utility bill to verify identity. However, upon contacting their customer service by phone, I was pressured into mailing a physical copy of my Social Security carda request that was not documented in any written communication or official company letterhead. I expressed concerns about this unusual demand and requested confirmation in writing, but the company has refused to document the request, raising serious questions about their intent and data security practices. \n\nI recorded the entirety of the phone call, in which their representative attempted to coerce me into providing this sensitive document without adequate written justification or assurance of data protection. This behavior appears to violate basic principles of consumer protection, privacy, and potentially federal regulations regarding the handling of personally identifiable information ( PII ). \n\nI am requesting that your agencies investigate the following : Whether Concora Credits request for Social Security cards without written justification violates FTC guidelines or SEC compliance requirements ; Whether they have proper procedures in place for securing sensitive personal information ; If these practices could represent deceptive, coercive, or non-compliant behavior. For the record, I am willing to provide a copy of the recorded phone call to support this complaint, as well as the letter I received from Concora Credit\n.\n\nConsumers should never be pressured into surrendering sensitive identity documents without clear written requests, documented policies, or appropriate security assurances. I respectfully urge your agencies to look into this matter and take appropriate regulatory or enforcement action if violations are found.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-05-30T18:09:07.000Z","issue":"Getting a credit card","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"10016","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13688258","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CLGF Holdco 1, LLC","date_received":"2025-05-23T17:44:02.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Delay in processing application"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I am requesting that your agencies investigate the following : Whether Concora Credits request for Social <em>Security</em> <em>cards</em> <em>without</em> written <em>justification</em> <em>violates</em> FTC guidelines or SEC compliance requirements ; Whether they have proper procedures in place for securing sensitive personal information ; If these practices could represent deceptive, coercive, or non-compliant behavior."]},"sort":[19.770779,"13688258"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"4519671","_score":15.950496,"_source":{"product":"Credit card or prepaid card","complaint_what_happened":"On XX/XX/XXXX all four of my capital one credit cards were restricted. I contacted capital one to see what the issue was, and I was transferred to the fraud department and told that I needed to provide proof of all my authorized users that are on 1 of my four credit cards. I was told to provide a front and back copy of their driver license and a copy of their social security card. I uploaded everything on the upload portal as requested. Unfortunately, the portal only allowed certain sized documents to be uploaded so I was concerned about whether everything was uploaded successfully or not. After calling to confirm that everything was successfully uploaded, I was told that it would take 7-10 days to process this information and was then told that I would be contacted if any additional information was needed. I was never contacted and every time I called the company about the status of my \" case XXXX '' I was given different responses. One person told me that It was still being investigated and to try calling back. Another person told me that all of my accounts were closed for violation but was unable to provide me any details about the violation. The last time I spoke with someone I was told that a case manager would contact me regarding the status of my case. I have not heard anything from anyone. Yesterday, I received an alert from XXXX XXXX, and XXXX saying that all four of my capital one accounts were closed by the creditor. I'm beyond confused and highly upset that adverse actions were taking on me for just adding close loved ones to my account in efforts of teaching them how to properly use and manage credit cards. I've been a customer with capital one since XXXX and feel blatantly disrespected. I also don't understand why all of my accounts were closed without justification.","date_sent_to_company":"2021-07-06T19:54:27.000Z","issue":"Closing your account","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"38654","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"4519671","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","date_received":"2021-07-06T19:33:06.000Z","state":"MS","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Company closed your account"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I'm beyond confused and highly upset that adverse actions were taking on me for just adding close loved ones to my account in efforts of teaching them how to properly use and manage credit <em>cards</em>. I've been a customer with capital one since XXXX and feel blatantly disrespected. I also don't understand why all of my accounts were closed <em>without</em> <em>justification</em>."]},"sort":[15.950496,"4519671"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"12495014","_score":15.718525,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"American Express XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX New York, NY XXXX Subject : Immediate Demand to Reinstate Accounts, Credit Access, and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Cards To Whom It XXXX Concern, This letter serves as a formal demand to immediately reinstate my accounts and provide the business credit card and XXXX XXXX XXXX American Express card that were unlawfully denied despite my legal rights as a secured party creditor. \nAMERICAN EXPRESS XXXX XXXX ACCOUNT XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX American Express has engaged in unlawful and harmful actions by arbitrarily closing my accounts without justification, directly causing me significant financial harm and disrupting my ability to manage my affairs as the principal. These actions have resulted in **economic hardship, damage to my creditworthiness, and undue stress. \nBy unlawfully restricting my access to financial resources, American Express has violated its fiduciary duty and engaged in bad faith practices that warrant immediate correction. I demand that American Express reinstate my accounts, remove any adverse credit reporting, and provide full accountability for these actions. \nFailure to comply with this demand will result in legal action for financial damages, regulatory complaints, and further escalation for unjust business practices. \nI. UNLAWFUL CREDIT DENIAL & ADVERSE ACTION ( 15 USC 1602 & 15 USC1961 On XXXX XXXX, XXXX, I applied for an American Express XXXX XXXX Card**, *, which was denied under **Reference Number : XXXX. ** On XXXX XXXX, XXXX *, I applied for an American Express XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX which XXXX also denied under **Reference Number : XXXX. ** These denials violate : - **15 USC 1602 ( Truth in Lending Act - TILA ) ** : My social security number was used to secure these accounts, and denying me access is a violation of my consumer rights.\n\n- 15 USC 1691 ( Equal Credit Opportunity Act - ECOA ) : Denying credit access without a valid reason constitutes credit discrimination and adverse action. ** Since American Express has no valid legal justification for these denials, I demand immediate issuance and full access to these credit accounts. \nXXXX. FAILURE TO HONOR LEGAL PAYMENTS & SECURITY INTEREST REVOCATION As previously stated, American Express received a 1099-A form as legal payment from the IRS for the following accounts : - **Account Numbers ending** XXXX XXXX - XXXX _ **Card Numbers : ** XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Per UCC 3-603 ( b ) , once payment is tendered and refused, the obligation is discharged. American Express ' refusal to apply this payment is a fraudulent financial practice and misapplication of funds. \nFurthermore, I hereby REVOKE any and all security interests previously granted to American Express on these accounts, meaning American Express no longer has any legal claims over them","date_sent_to_company":"2025-03-14T06:30:58.000Z","issue":"Getting a credit card","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"706XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"12495014","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY","date_received":"2025-03-14T05:55:03.000Z","state":"LA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Application denied"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":[". ** These denials <em>violate</em> : - **15 USC 1602 ( Truth in Lending Act - TILA ) ** : My social <em>security</em> number was used to secure these accounts, and denying me access is a <em>violation</em> of my consumer rights."]},"sort":[15.718525,"12495014"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"11284506","_score":14.496423,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"I am filing this formal complaint against PayPal Holdings , Inc., highlighting their refusal to allow me to disconnect my linked financial accounts ( bank accounts, debit cards, and credit cards ) and their failure to provide a transparent explanation for permanently deactivating my account. These actions raise serious concerns under federal and North Carolina state laws governing consumer protection, financial privacy, and electronic fund transfers.\n\nSummary of Current Issues Refusal to Disconnect Financial Accounts : Despite multiple requests, PayPal is refusing to allow me to disconnect my linked bank accounts, credit cards, and debit cards. This creates significant privacy and security risks and violates my right to control access to my financial instruments.\n\nLack of Explanation for Permanent Deactivation : PayPal permanently deactivated my account without providing any specific or actionable explanation, despite multiple requests for clarity. \n\nOngoing Risk to Financial Security : By retaining access to my financial instruments, PayPal exposes me to potential unauthorized transactions and data misuse.\n\nFederal Laws Violated 1. Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ) 15 U.S.C. 1693 et seq.\n\nPayPals refusal to disconnect my financial accounts violates the EFTA 's requirements for transparency and consumer control over electronic transfers : 1693f : Requires error resolution and provision of a written explanation for account actions.\n\n1693c : Mandates disclosure of terms governing electronic fund transfers.\n\n2. Federal Trade Commission Act ( FTC Act ) 15 U.S.C. 45 Retaining access to my financial accounts without consent constitutes unfair and deceptive practices : Unfair : Creates unnecessary financial risk and harm to the consumer. \nDeceptive : Refuses to disclose actionable reasons for account deactivation, preventing informed decision-making. \n\nNorth Carolina State Laws Violated 1. North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX PayPals refusal to disconnect financial accounts and lack of transparency in account deactivation are unfair and deceptive acts under XXXX. \n\nXXXX. North Carolina Identity Theft Protection XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX et seq. \n\nBy retaining access to my financial instruments, PayPal increases my risk of identity theft and fails to safeguard my financial data, violating 75-63.\n\n3. Breach of Fiduciary Duty As a financial service provider, PayPal has a fiduciary duty to act in good faith and exercise due care. Their refusal to disconnect my financial accounts violates this duty. \n\nRelevant Case Law Federal Cases Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. PayPal , Inc. ( XXXX ) : XXXX was fined {$25.00} XXXX for deceptive practices, including failing to provide adequate information about its practices and account actions. \n\nIn re PayPal Account XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) : Established that withholding information about account limitations violates consumer protection laws. \n\nNorth Carolina XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ) : Confirmed that actions causing substantial consumer harm without justification are violations of the UDTPA. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  : Held that financial institutions owe a fiduciary duty to customers, including acting in good faith. \n\nRelief Requested Immediate Action : Require PayPal to disconnect all linked financial accounts upon my request.\n\nDemand PayPal provide a detailed and transparent explanation for the permanent deactivation of my account.\n\nInvestigation : Launch a formal investigation into PayPals practices to determine compliance with federal and state consumer protection laws. \n\nCompensation : Seek damages for emotional distress and the ongoing risk to my financial security. \n\nRegulatory Oversight : Enforce stricter oversight measures to prevent PayPal from engaging in similar practices in the future.\n\nSupporting Documentation Account History : Long-standing account with no disputes or compliance issues.\n\nCorrespondence Records : Requests to disconnect accounts and lack of responses from PayPal.\n\nTimeline of Events : Documentation of requests and PayPals refusal to comply.\n\nPayPals refusal to disconnect my financial accounts and their failure to provide an explanation for account deactivation violate both federal and North Carolina state laws. These actions create unnecessary risk and harm and undermine my consumer rights. I urge your office to act decisively to hold PayPal accountable and ensure compliance with applicable laws.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-12-27T00:42:57.000Z","issue":"Managing, opening, or closing your mobile wallet account","sub_product":"Mobile or digital wallet","zip_code":"27834","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"11284506","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Paypal Holdings, Inc","date_received":"2024-12-27T00:35:23.000Z","state":"NC","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["XXXX ) : Established that withholding information about account limitations <em>violates</em> consumer protection laws. \n\nNorth Carolina XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ) : Confirmed that actions causing substantial consumer harm <em>without</em> <em>justification</em> are <em>violations</em> of the UDTPA."]},"sort":[14.496423,"11284506"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16875308","_score":14.49468,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"Company : Citibank , N.A .\n\nProduct : Credit Card Issue : Account problems/ Secured card deposit not released What happened : I opened a Citi Secured Credit Card over five years ago with the expectation that the account would be periodically reviewed and eventually graduated to an unsecured credit card based on responsible usage. Throughout the entire life of this account, I have never made a late payment, my utilization has always remained low, and I have consistently used the card responsibly.\n\nDespite this, Citibank has continued to extend the secured status of my account without providing any clear graduation timeline, review results, or transparent criteria. Each time I have contacted customer service, I have been told to continue waiting without any meaningful explanation. I have not been notified of any legitimate reason for withholding graduation or my security deposit after\nmore than five years.\n\nOther consumers with similar Citi secured accounts generally graduate within approximately 618 months. In my case, Citibank appears to be holding my security deposit indefinitely and refusing to transition the account, without providing clear Communication, criteria, or written justification. This directly conflicts with the stated purpose of secured credit products, which is to help responsible consumers build credit and transition to unsecured status.\n\nImpact to me : Citibanks refusal to graduate the account has caused financial inconvenience by restricting access to my refundable deposit and preventing normal credit growth. It has also created uncertainty and confusion due to the lack of transparency regarding review standards. Requested resolution : I am requesting : A formal manual review of my account for graduation,\nRelease of my security deposit, OR Conversion of my account to an unsecured Citi card product, Written explanation of Citibanks graduation criteria, review schedule, and the specific reason for delay.\n\nWhy this seems unfair : I personally know individuals whose Citi secured cards graduated within 618 months. It has now been over five years in my case despite perfect payment history, responsible usage, and healthy credit behavior. Citibank has made no reasonable effort to review or release my deposit.\n\nLegal concern : I believe Citibanks lack of transparency and indefinite extension of secured status may constitute an unfair or deceptive practice in violation of UDAAP ( Unfair, Deceptive, and Abusive Acts and Practices ), particularly given the long duration, the lack of disclosed criteria, and refusal to review the account.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-10-28T14:03:03.000Z","issue":"Other features, terms, or problems","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"070XX","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"16875308","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CITIBANK, N.A.","date_received":"2025-10-28T13:58:01.000Z","state":"NJ","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Other problem"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["In my case, Citibank appears to be holding my <em>security</em> deposit indefinitely and refusing to transition the account, <em>without</em> providing clear Communication, criteria, or written <em>justification</em>. This directly conflicts with the stated purpose of secured credit products, which is to help responsible consumers build credit and transition to unsecured status."]},"sort":[14.49468,"16875308"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18875518","_score":13.263695,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"CFPB COMPLAINT I am submitting this complaint because Citibank has failed to comply with its obligations under federal law after I reported an unauthorized withdrawal of {$640.00} from my checking account on XX/XX/year>. I notified Citibank immediately, and the bank locked my account, cancelled my debit cards, and stated the fraud unit would investigate. More than a month has now passed with no written explanation, no investigative findings, and no provisional credit. My account remains restricted, preventing me from accessing my own funds. Citibanks actions violate the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E, which require a bank to complete its investigation within ten business days or, if more time is needed, to issue a provisional credit while the investigation continues. Citibank has not provided the required provisional credit and has not provided any lawful justification for withholding funds for this extended period. In addition, Citibank has frozen my entire balance, including Social Security benefits, military pension payments, and XXXX deposits. These federal benefits are protected by law and may not be frozen or withheld except in very narrow circumstances that do not apply here. The banks continued refusal to release these funds has caused significant financial hardship, as I have been unable to pay ordinary living expenses despite having funds on deposit. Throughout this period I have contacted Citibank repeatedly and have been transferred between departments without receiving any useful information or assistance. No one at the bank has been able to explain why the investigation has exceeded the allowed timelines or why my federal benefit deposits remain inaccessible. I am requesting that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau require Citibank to explain its failure to comply with Regulation E, restore full access to all nondisputed funds in the account, issue the required provisional credit for the disputed amount, and provide a written explanation of its actions. I am also requesting that Citibank be instructed to take corrective action immediately so I can access my federal benefits and resolve this matter without further delay.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-01-20T23:33:15.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"28078","tags":"Older American, Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18875518","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CITIBANK, N.A.","date_received":"2026-01-20T23:20:53.000Z","state":"NC","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Problem accessing account"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Citibanks actions <em>violate</em> the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E, which require a bank to complete its investigation within ten business days or, if more time is needed, to issue a provisional credit while the investigation continues. Citibank has not provided the required provisional credit and has not provided any lawful <em>justification</em> for withholding funds for this extended period."]},"sort":[13.263695,"18875518"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"12182805","_score":12.850905,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"Subject : Urgent CFPB Complaint Capital Ones Security Failures, FCRA & FTC Act Violations, and Deceptive Practices To Whom It May Concern, I am filing this formal complaint against Capital One for severe security failures, violations of federal law, deceptive business practices, and unauthorized access to my credit report. Capital One has : Approved my credit application but refused to grant me access to my own account.\n\nConducted hard inquiries on my credit before verifying my identity.\n\nAdmitted on recorded calls that they allow accounts to be created and credit cards mailed out before fully verifying applicants.\n\nProvided conflicting and misleading statements about my identity verification.\n\nThese actions constitute clear violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), Equal Credit Opportunity Act ( ECOA ), Federal Trade Commission Act ( FTC Act ), and Consumer Financial Protection Act ( CFPA ) and expose millions of consumers to fraud and identity theft. \n\nBackground of Capital Ones Misconduct XX/XX/2025 : I was officially approved for a Capital One QuicksilverOne credit card. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX  : Capital One repeatedly requested ID verification, facial recognition photos, and proof of address, which I fully complied with. \nXX/XX/2025 : Capital One confirmed that my updated information was successfully verified. \nDespite all verifications, Capital One continues to deny me access to my own account. \nSupervisors on recorded calls have admitted : Anyone can submit an application using another persons information, and Capital One will run a hard credit inquiry without verifying the person first. \nAn account can be created, and a credit card can be mailed out before the identity of the applicant is verified. \nOnly after an account is created does Capital One fully verify identity, meaning fraudsters can easily obtain credit in someone elses name. \nI was also falsely told that my date of birth did not match my account informationdespite previously being told that my updates were verified. \nThese admissions confirm that Capital Ones policies allow identity theft and fraud while simultaneously denying rightful access to legitimate account holders.\n\nCapital Ones Federal Law Violations 1 Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) Violations 15 U.S.C. 1681b Capital One has violated multiple provisions of the FCRA by running hard credit inquiries before verifying applicants, exposing consumers to fraud and unauthorized credit damage.\n\nLegal Violations : FCRA 1681b ( f ) : Prohibits unauthorized access to consumer credit reports.\n\nFCRA 1681n & 1681o : Allows legal action against institutions that willfully or negligently violate credit reporting laws.\n\nCapital One has ADMITTED they allow hard inquiries on unverified applicants, which is an outright violation of FCRA.\n\n2 Equal Credit Opportunity Act ( ECOA ) Violations 15 U.S.C. 1691 Capital Ones practice of approving credit applications but refusing access without explanation violates ECOAs anti-discrimination and adverse action requirements.\n\nLegal Violations : ECOA 1691 ( d ) ( 2 ) ( A ) : Capital One must issue an adverse action notice if it denies access after approval.\n\nECOA 1691 ( a ) : Prohibits lenders from unfairly discriminating against applicants.\n\nIf Capital One is approving applications and then selectively blocking access to accounts, it is engaging in discriminatory lending practices.\n\n3 Federal Trade Commission Act ( FTC Act ) Violations 15 U.S.C. 45 Capital One is engaging in unfair and deceptive business practices ( UDAP ) by : Approving credit applications without verifying identity Running hard credit inquiries on unverified applicants Sending out credit cards before confirming applicant identities Denying rightful account holders access without justification Legal Violations : FTC Act 5 ( 15 U.S.C. 45 ) : Prohibits unfair and deceptive business practices.\n\nCapital Ones process creates a massive security risk and enables financial fraud on a national scale.\n\n4 Consumer Financial Protection Act ( CFPA ) Violations 12 U.S.C. 5531 Capital Ones refusal to provide access while admitting that anyone can submit an application and receive credit before verification is an abusive financial practice that violates CFPAs consumer protection laws.\n\nLegal Violation : 12 U.S.C. 5531 : Prohibits unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices in consumer financial transactions.\n\nThis practice exposes consumers to identity theft while violating their rights to access accounts for which they have been approved.\n\nDemand for Immediate Action I am formally requesting urgent regulatory intervention from the CFPB to : Obtain and review all recorded calls from my interactions with Capital One representatives and supervisors, where they admitted to these security failures.\n\nRequire Capital One to provide an immediate and detailed explanation for its denial of access to my approved account.\n\nInvestigate Capital Ones process of running hard credit inquiries before verifying applicants.\n\nReview Capital Ones policies for compliance with FCRA, ECOA, FTC Act, and CFPA.\n\nImpose penalties on Capital One for enabling unauthorized credit applications, violating consumer protection laws, and failing to uphold proper identity verification standards.\n\nCapital Ones refusal to provide account access despite full identity verification combined with its admission that applications can be submitted, credit inquiries conducted, and accounts created before verification represents an unprecedented security failure that places millions of consumers at risk. \n\nSupporting Documents & Evidence : Approval Email ( XX/XX/2025 ) Confirming credit approval. \nVerification Requests ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) Showing multiple ID and security requests. \nAddress Confirmation Email ( XX/XX/2025 ) Proving successful verification. \nStatements from Capital One representatives on recorded calls Admitting to unlawful practices. \nThis is a clear violation of federal consumer protection laws and requires immediate regulatory enforcement against Capital One. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX : XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-02-23T22:39:50.000Z","issue":"Other features, terms, or problems","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"32703","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"12182805","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","date_received":"2025-02-23T21:41:25.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Other problem"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["access <em>without</em> <em>justification</em> Legal <em>Violations</em> : FTC Act 5 ( 15 U.S.C. 45 ) : Prohibits unfair and deceptive business practices."]},"sort":[12.850905,"12182805"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"4415468","_score":12.375,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Note to Experian : You have my authorization to conduct an investigation into my complaint. \n\nMy name is XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. I am submitting this complaint in good faith on behalf of myself and no other individual. \n\nReason for complaint : Inability of data furnisher, Experian Information Solutions, to follow FCRA statute in regards to permissible purposes of credit inquiries. \n\nBe Advised : The following statement has existed on my Experian credit profile since XX/XX/XXXX as a result of multiple fraudulent accounts being opened in my name. Experian has blatantly disregarded the law by not adhering to FCRA statutes by failing to notify me when such attempts to attain credit were made in my name. \n\nPersonal Statements ID SECURITY ALERT : FRAUDULENT APPLICATIONS MAY BE SUBMITTED IN MY NAME OR MY IDENTITY MAY HAVE BEEN USED WITHOUT MY CONSENT TO FRAUDULENTLY OBTAIN GOODS OR SERVICES. DO NOT EXTEND CREDIT WITHOUT FIRST VERIFYING THE IDENTITY OF THE APPLICANT. I CAN BE REACHED AT XXXX. THIS SECURITY ALERT WILL BE MAINTAINED FOR 1 YEAR BEGINNING XXXX. FILE FROZEN DUE TO FEDERAL LEGISLATION. \n\nThe following inquiries were placed on my credit file on the corresponding dates. I did not authorize any of these inquiries nor has Experian ever provided me proof that they have conducted a real investigation into the existence of their own identity theft protection. BY not adhering to FCRA statutes, they have allowed my credit score to drop significantly while allowing me to be continually exposed to identity theft. I was never made aware of these attempts to assess credit on my credit file. I have sent Experian multiple letters urging them to delete these inquiries from my credit profile and I have attached them to this CFPB complaint. Experian has responded, not in writing but online, which is a violation of their own Arbitration clause, with an erroneous and illogical FCRA non-compliant justification. I have included a copy of their response as well. \n\nA remedy for this damaging behavior would be to simply have these six inquiries removed from my Experian credit file. \n\nXXXX Inquired on XX/XX/XXXX Business Type : Auto Financing Companies XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, AZ XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX This inquiry is scheduled to continue on record until XX/XX/XXXX XXXX Inquired on XX/XX/XXXX Business Type : Auto Financing Companies XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, AZ XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX This inquiry is scheduled to continue on record until XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Inquired on XX/XX/XXXX Business Type : Bank Credit Cards XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, DE XXXX By mail only This inquiry is scheduled to continue on record until XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Inquired on XX/XX/XXXX Business Type : Bank XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, DE XXXX By mail only This inquiry is scheduled to continue on record until XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Inquired on XX/XX/XXXX Business Type : Bank Credit Cards XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, NV XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX This inquiry is scheduled to continue on record until XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Inquired on XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, DE XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX Unspecied. This inquiry is scheduled to continue on record until XX/XX/XXXX.","date_sent_to_company":"2021-05-28T04:23:34.000Z","issue":"Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"68502","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"4415468","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2021-05-28T04:23:30.000Z","state":"NE","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":["Personal Statements ID <em>SECURITY</em> ALERT : FRAUDULENT APPLICATIONS MAY BE SUBMITTED IN MY NAME OR MY IDENTITY MAY HAVE BEEN USED <em>WITHOUT</em> MY CONSENT TO FRAUDULENTLY OBTAIN GOODS OR SERVICES. DO NOT EXTEND CREDIT <em>WITHOUT</em> FIRST VERIFYING THE IDENTITY OF THE APPLICANT. I CAN BE REACHED AT XXXX. THIS <em>SECURITY</em> ALERT WILL BE MAINTAINED FOR 1 YEAR BEGINNING XXXX. FILE FROZEN DUE TO FEDERAL LEGISLATION. \n\nThe following inquiries were placed on my credit file on the corresponding dates."]},"sort":[12.375,"4415468"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13794636","_score":12.166418,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"Branch Messenger , Inc. is engaging in deceptive, manipulative practices under the guise of fraud prevention. I have experienced repeated instances where my XXXX XXXX XXXX is locked after nearly every transactionsometimes even routine purchases. I am then required to respond to an in-app prompt or text message to unlock it. This has become a constant, intrusive process that interferes with my ability to use my funds freely. \n\nThis is not a legitimate fraud detection systemit is a coercive mechanism designed to force users to repeatedly open the XXXX app. The pattern is clear : each transaction triggers a lock, the user must interact with the app, and only then is the card restored. This behavior is inconsistent with industry-standard fraud monitoring and lacks any credible justification, especially given that the same device and same merchant patterns are involved. \n\nDeceptive Motive Behind These Alerts : XXXX app contains extensive background tracking infrastructure. Forensic analysis of the XXXX app code revealed integration with XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX XXXX XXXX. These tools are not just for fraud preventionthey allow for real-time user behavior monitoring, profiling, and data harvesting. The app also accesses device-level accessibility services and location information in the background. \n\nI believe these excessive fraud alerts are a pretext to force users to engage with the app more frequentlythereby generating more behavioral data, telemetry, and monetizable insights. This has become more aggressive following the termination of their payment relationship with XXXX XXXX, suggesting that user data may now be their primary revenue source. \n\nKey Violations and Findings : Constant forced app engagement under the pretense of fraud verification. \n\nNo opt-out or alternative available to receive payments or bypass the app. \n\nPermissions requested include location, biometric data, accessibility services, overlay permissions, and persistent background operationwithout clear or separate consent. \n\nAccessibilityService APIs used to enumerate active screen readers and possibly monitor other apps behavior. \n\nBehavioral profiling likely ongoing, even when the user is not actively using the app. \nConsumer Financial Protection Act ( 12 U.S.C. 5531 and 5536 ) prohibits unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices in connection with consumer financial services. Requiring repeated app interactions under false fraud alert pretenses constitutes a deceptive and abusive tactic, especially when tied to data harvesting.\n\nElectronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E ( 15 U.S.C. 1693 et seq. ; 12 C.F.R. Part 1005 ) mandates clear disclosure of conditions for freezing access to funds. Locking debit cards under false security claims without transparent terms violates EFTA and its disclosure requirements.\n\nFair Credit Reporting Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq. ) restricts use of consumer data for unauthorized profiling. If user behavior collected from forced app interactions is shared or used for decisioning without consent, it may violate FCRA.\n\nFederal Trade Commission Act ( 15 U.S.C. 45 ) prohibits deceptive trade practices. Representing system-generated fraud alerts as genuine security activity while using them to trigger app openings and collect behavioral data is deceptive.\n\nGramm-Leach-Bliley Act ( 15 U.S.C. 68016809 ) requires financial institutions to explain and obtain consent for data-sharing practices. Undisclosed integration with analytics platforms and behavioral trackers ( e.g., Firebase, Mixpanel, Braze ) raises compliance concerns.\n\nFlorida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act ( Fla. Stat. 501.204 ) prohibits unfair or deceptive conduct in business. Misleading consumers about security practices in order to manipulate app usage and enable intrusive data collection constitutes a violation under FDUTPA.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-05-29T05:30:28.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"32504","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13794636","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Branch Messenger, Inc.","date_received":"2025-05-29T05:10:33.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Problem making or receiving payments"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Locking debit <em>cards</em> under false <em>security</em> claims <em>without</em> transparent terms <em>violates</em> EFTA and its disclosure requirements.\n\nFair Credit Reporting Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq. ) restricts use of consumer data for unauthorized profiling. If user behavior collected from forced app interactions is shared or used for decisioning <em>without</em> consent, it may <em>violate</em> FCRA.\n\nFederal Trade Commission Act ( 15 U.S.C. 45 ) prohibits deceptive trade practices."]},"sort":[12.166418,"13794636"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17249217","_score":11.243032,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"I, XXXX XXXX, submit this complaint against Netspend Corporation for unlawful, deceptive, and retaliatory practices that have resulted in financial harm, data exposure, and obstruction of access to federally protected funds. The conduct described below constitutes violations of Regulation E, the Social Security Act, the Consumer Financial Protection Act, the Federal Trade Commission Act Section 5, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. \n\nFactual Allegations On XX/XX/year>, I filed a dispute with Netspend supported by seventy-eight documented pieces of evidence, including merchant confirmations and ledgers showing duplicate and triplicate deductions for single orders. Despite this evidence, the dispute was initially denied. \n\nOn XX/XX/year>, after escalation, Netspend issued a provisional credit in the amount of {$1600.00}. \n\nOn XX/XX/year>, Netspend reversed the credit. Their written explanation stated there was no evidence of fraud, device compromise, or transaction errors. When I requested documentation of how this conclusion was reached, Netspend produced a single-page, two-sentence statement : We were unable to resolve the amount with the merchant. This contradicted their own prior communication and ignored the evidence I had submitted, including merchant ledgers and Netspend agent confirmations of fraudulent charges. \n\nFollowing the reversal, Netspend overdrafted my account by {$1700.00}. When Social Security deposits for myself and my son XXXX were posted, for XXXX and XXXX instead of reflecting XXXX, Netspend garnished XXXX percent of the funds without court order, without notice, and without legal justification. My account remained overdrawn by {$620.00}, and from XX/XX/year>, to the present, I have been denied access to federally protected benefits. After numerous attempts to resolve this. Netspend agents laughed hung up and continued to make their intent clear when asked to abide by banking regulations and laws in place for divine order. We have been dismissed harassed and target XXXX accounts all linked to XXXX house hold. I have medical needs as well as my sons special needs that are late and passed due. My credit score is going down. I got a pay notice or quit for overdue rent. The attrition strategy is XXXX that impacts my health in my old age. I began experiencing XXXX and had to visit the emergency room. \n\nSimultaneously, Netspend froze my wifes account ending in XXXX, containing {$7600.00}. Despite submission of bank regulation documents confirming her account was already verified, Netspend refused to issue a refund check or provide access to her funds. \n\nXXXX additional accounts were also impacted. XXXX was activated and then blocked immediately after a {$30.00} load. Another was refused activation entirely, with Netspend stating the refusal was because I had filed a complaint regarding the current account.\n\nResulting Harm As a direct result of Netspends actions, my household has suffered severe hardship : - Rent arrears of {$210.00} with a pay-or-quit notice. \n- XXXX arrears totaling {$1400.00}, including a PG & XXXX bill for {$1000.00} and a secondary bill for {$430.00}. \n- Unpaid medical needs for my husband totaling {$550.00}. \n- Unpaid special needs expenses for my son totaling {$400.00}. \n- Complete deprivation of food and basic necessities. \n- Denial of access to {$180.00} in prepaid cards purchased for emergency use. \n\nNetspend was fully aware of these circumstances yet continued to obstruct access to funds, reject valid documentation, and retaliate against my household.\n\nLegal Violations Netspends conduct constitutes violations of : - Regulation E : unlawful denial of access to electronic funds and unauthorized reversal of dispute credits.\n\n- Social Security Act : improper garnishment of SSA deposits without judicial authorization.\n\n- Consumer Financial Protection Act : unfair, deceptive, and abusive acts or practices.\n\n- FTC Act Section 5 : deceptive business practices and misrepresentation.\n\n- Americans with Disabilities Act : disproportionate harm to XXXX household members. \n\nRelief Requested I respectfully request regulatory enforcement action requiring Netspend to : 1. Immediately release all withheld funds via expedited check delivery.\n\n2. Reverse unjustified fees and overdraft assessments.\n\n3. Provide a written accounting of all deductions, reversals, and account closures.\n\n4. Confirm whether my personal data was unlawfully disclosed to third parties.\n\n5. Implement corrective measures to ensure compliance with federal consumer protection laws. \n\nI am prepared to submit supporting documentation, including merchant confirmations, call logs, email correspondence, utility bills, identity verification records, and evidence of phishing attempts. \n\nRespectfully submitted, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-14T21:36:13.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"95060","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17249217","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Netspend Corporation","date_received":"2025-11-14T20:54:13.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Deposits and withdrawals"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["When Social <em>Security</em> deposits for myself and my son XXXX were posted, for XXXX and XXXX instead of reflecting XXXX, Netspend garnished XXXX percent of the funds <em>without</em> court order, <em>without</em> notice, and <em>without</em> legal <em>justification</em>. My account remained overdrawn by {$620.00}, and from XX/XX/year>, to the present, I have been denied access to federally protected benefits. After numerous attempts to resolve this."]},"sort":[11.243032,"17249217"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"12873534","_score":10.802013,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"Dear CFPB, I am writing to formally lodge a serious complaint against American Express ( Amex ) for what I believe amounts to deceptive business practices, financial negligence, and potential violation of consumer protection laws that have caused me significant financial loss, emotional distress, and continued trauma. \n\nOn XX/XX/year>, I contacted Amex to place a hard block on my card due to concerns around unauthorized or recurring charges. I was explicitly told by their representative : I can help you with a hard block which will cancel all the recurring subscriptions on your card after replacing your current card so that the card number will change. After that, I'll help you with the recent charge dispute. Shall I? \n\nI consented, and Amex subsequently confirmed : By adding this block on your previous card, we will begin declining all transactions on that card number effective immediately. Shall I proceed? \n\nHard block is successfully applied on all previous cards. \n\nDespite these assurances, I never activated the replacement card, and yet, I began noticing transactions being posted against itincluding recurring charges that Amex assured me would be blocked. When I contacted Amex again to report this breach, I was met with a series of conflicting and evasive responses, including : \" To stop the recurring charges, you can contact the merchant directly. '' \" Your card was enrolled to send upgrades to merchant and hence it was possible to claim charges for recurring merchants on your existing or new card. '' \" Pre-authorized charges can go through on a replaced card even if you haven't activated it. '' \" All XXXX charges are showing as Keyed transactions. '' \" Sometimes, charges get approved even without card activation for urgent transactions like groceries or cabs to avoid inconvenience. '' None of this was disclosed at the time I was told a hard block would effectively cancel \" ALL '' transactions on previous cards. The term \" hard block '' was used as a guarantee to stop all transactions and subscriptions. I relied on this representation and did not take further action, which resulted in continued unauthorized charges and financial damage. \n\nKey issues : 1. I never activated the new card.\n\n2. I was assured recurring charges would stop after a hard block. 3. Transactions still occurred, including keyed charges, which imply manual entry I never performed.\n\n4. Amex failed to honor its own processes, giving multiple contradictory justifications post-facto.\n\n5. Their behavior shows a complete disregard for consumer trust, financial integrity, and emotional well-being.\n\nThe continuous change in narrative and refusal to take accountability not only led to monetary losses but also left me in a state of persistent anxiety and helplessness. I trusted Amexs word and their assurances, and instead, I was met with misleading half-truths, operational failures, and a lack of consumer protection. \n\nI respectfully urge your office to investigate this matter. If this has happened to me, it is likely affecting many other unsuspecting consumers who are being misled by false promises of security and card protection. This needs regulatory scrutiny and intervention to prevent further exploitation. \n\nI am happy to provide all supporting documentation including chat transcripts, account statements, and communication records with Amex. \n\nThank you for your time and attention to this deeply distressing matter. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-04-08T06:45:52.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"02116","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"12873534","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY","date_received":"2025-04-08T06:34:22.000Z","state":"MA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Card was charged for something you did not purchase with the card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["card activation for urgent transactions like groceries or cabs to avoid inconvenience. '' None of this was disclosed at the time I was told a hard block would effectively cancel \" ALL '' transactions on previous <em>cards</em>."]},"sort":[10.802013,"12873534"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13613139","_score":9.912047,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Filed Against : XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), XXXX ( XXXX ), and XXXX XXXX. \n\nNature of the Complaint : This is a formal complaint against XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), XXXX ( XXXX ), and XXXX XXXX for multiple violations of federal and state consumer protection laws. These violations involve the unauthorized reporting of business accounts under my personal credit file, failure to validate debt and provide requested documentation, inaccurate reporting to credit bureaus, and noncompliance with data privacy laws. I am requesting that the CFPB initiate a full investigation and refer this matter to the appropriate federal and state agencies, as applicable. \n\nSummary of Key Issues : 1. Unauthorized Personal Credit Reporting by XXXX XXXX is reporting three delinquent business credit card accounts to my personal credit reports with XXXX XXXX  and TransUnion. \n\nI never signed a personal guarantee, nor authorized these accounts to be reported under my personal Social Security number. \n\nI am not personally liable for the business accounts in question. \n\n2. Failure to Provide Required Documentation - Since XX/XX/year>, I have made repeated formal requests by mail and phone for : - Signed credit applications- Contracts or agreements proving personal liability - Any documents showing my authorization for personal credit reporting To date, no documentation has been produced, which constitutes a failure to validate the debt under federal law. \n\n3. Improper Handling of Disputes by XXXX and Credit Bureaus I submitted disputes with XXXX XXXX XXXX  TransUnion regarding these accounts. \n\nThe credit bureaus and XXXX have failed to conduct proper reinvestigations, did not provide verification, and continue to report the accounts as valid. \n\nXXXX responses have been vague, evasive, and conclusively dismissive, without offering evidence or legal justification. \n\n4. Refusal to Cancel Accounts and Delete Personal Data I submitted written requests to cancel the following XXXX cards : XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX, and to remove my personal data from their systems. \n\nAll three companies have ignored or failed to fulfill these requests and have not confirmed account closures or data deletion. \n\nThis is a clear violation of multiple state and federal data protection statutes. \n\nViolations of Federal and State Law : Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq. \n1681s-2 ( a ) : Furnishing inaccurate or incomplete information to credit reporting agencies. \n\n1681s-2 ( b ) : Failing to properly investigate and correct disputed information. \n\n1681e ( b ) : Failure to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of information. \n\nFair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq. ( If third-party collection is involved ) 1692e : Misrepresentation of debt and false credit reporting. \n\n1692g : Failure to validate the debt upon written request. \n\nGramm-Leach-Bliley Act ( GLBA ) Failure to safeguard and handle personal financial data appropriately. \n\nFlorida Information Protection Act ( FIPA ) Failure to act on consumer data deletion and protection requests as required under Florida law. \n\nCalifornia Consumer Privacy Act ( CCPA ) ( if data held or processed in CA ) Noncompliance with verified consumer requests to delete or restrict access to personal data. \n\nDodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Title X ( Consumer Financial Protection Act ) Unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices ( UDAAP ) through misreporting, failure to validate, and ignoring legally mandated data and dispute rights. \n\nCompanys Response and Refusal to Comply : In response to my detailed complaint, XXXX sent a generic and irrelevant letter dated XX/XX/year>, which failed to address or investigate any of the specific legal violations I raised. The company refuses to provide any documentation, continues reporting disputed business accounts as personal liabilities, and now claims the matter is closed. This is not only unresponsiveit is a violation of consumer rights under the FCRA and other laws.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-05-20T22:01:25.000Z","issue":"Credit monitoring or identity theft protection services","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"349XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13613139","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-05-20T22:01:00.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Problem canceling credit monitoring or identify theft protection service"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["XXXX responses have been vague, evasive, and conclusively dismissive, <em>without</em> offering evidence or legal <em>justification</em>. \n\n4. Refusal to Cancel Accounts and Delete Personal Data I submitted written requests to cancel the following XXXX <em>cards</em> : XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX, and to remove my personal data from their systems. \n\nAll three companies have ignored or failed to fulfill these requests and have not confirmed account closures or data deletion."]},"sort":[9.912047,"13613139"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13608236","_score":9.912047,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Filed Against : XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), XXXX ( XXXX ), and XXXX XXXX. Nature of the Complaint : This is a formal complaint against XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), XXXX ( XXXX ), and XXXX XXXX for multiple violations of federal and state consumer protection laws. These violations involve the unauthorized reporting of business accounts under my personal credit file, failure to validate debt and provide requested documentation, inaccurate reporting to credit bureaus, and noncompliance with data privacy laws. \n\nI am requesting that the CFPB initiate a full investigation and refer this matter to the appropriate federal and state agencies, as applicable. Summary of Key Issues : 1. Unauthorized Personal Credit Reporting by XXXX XXXX is reporting XXXX delinquent business credit card accounts to my personal credit reports with XXXX, Experian, and XXXX. I never signed a personal guarantee, nor authorized these accounts to be reported under my personal Social Security number. I am not personally liable for the business accounts in question.\n\n2. Failure to Provide Required Documentation - Since XX/XX/year>, I have made repeated formal requests by mail and phone for : - Signed credit applications- Contracts or agreements proving personal liability - Any documents showing my authorization for personal credit reporting To date, no documentation has been produced, which constitutes a failure to validate the debt under federal law.\n\n3. Improper Handling of Disputes by XXXX and Credit Bureaus I submitted disputes with XXXX, Experian, and XXXX  regarding these accounts. The credit bureaus and XXXX have failed to conduct proper reinvestigations, did not provide verification, and continue to report the accounts as valid. XXXX responses have been vague, evasive, and conclusively dismissive, without offering evidence or legal justification.\n\n4. Refusal to Cancel Accounts and Delete Personal Data I submitted written requests to cancel the following XXXX cards XXXX XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX, and to remove my personal data from their systems. All three companies have ignored or failed to fulfill these requests and have not confirmed account closures or data deletion. This is a clear violation of multiple state and federal data protection statutes. Violations of Federal and State Law : Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq. 1681s-2 ( a ) : Furnishing inaccurate or incomplete information to credit reporting agencies. 1681s-2 ( b ) : Failing to properly investigate and correct disputed information. 1681e ( b ) : Failure to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of information. Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq. ( If third-party collection is involved ) 1692e : Misrepresentation of debt and false credit reporting. 1692g : Failure to validate the debt upon written request. Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act ( GLBA ) Failure to safeguard and handle personal financial data appropriately. Florida Information Protection Act ( FIPA ) Failure to act on consumer data deletion and protection requests as required under XXXX  law. XXXX Consumer Privacy Act ( CCPA ) ( if data held or processed in CA ) Noncompliance with verified consumer requests to delete or restrict access to personal data. XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Consumer Financial Protection Act ) Unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices ( UDAAP ) through misreporting, failure to validate, and ignoring legally mandated data and dispute rights. Companys Response and Refusal to Comply : In response to my detailed complaint, XXXX sent a generic and irrelevant letter dated XX/XX/year>, which failed to address or investigate any of the specific legal violations I raised. The company refuses to provide any documentation, continues reporting disputed business accounts as personal liabilities, and now claims the matter is closed. \n\nThis is not only unresponsiveit is a violation of consumer rights under the FCRA and other laws.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-05-21T00:06:02.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"349XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13608236","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-05-21T00:05:37.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["XXXX responses have been vague, evasive, and conclusively dismissive, <em>without</em> offering evidence or legal <em>justification</em>.\n\n4. Refusal to Cancel Accounts and Delete Personal Data I submitted written requests to cancel the following XXXX <em>cards</em> XXXX XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX, and to remove my personal data from their systems. All three companies have ignored or failed to fulfill these requests and have not confirmed account closures or data deletion."]},"sort":[9.912047,"13608236"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13627425","_score":9.908074,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Filed Against : XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), XXXX ( XXXX ), and XXXX XXXX. \n\nNature of the Complaint : This is a formal complaint against XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), XXXX ( XXXX ), and XXXX XXXX for multiple violations of federal and state consumer protection laws. These violations involve the unauthorized reporting of business accounts under my personal credit file, failure to validate debt and provide requested documentation, inaccurate reporting to credit bureaus, and noncompliance with data privacy laws. I am requesting that the CFPB initiate a full investigation and refer this matter to the appropriate federal and state agencies, as applicable. \n\nSummary of Key Issues : 1. Unauthorized Personal Credit Reporting by XXXX XXXX is reporting three delinquent business credit card accounts to my personal credit reports with EquifaxXXXX XXXX  and XXXX. \n\nI never signed a personal guarantee, nor authorized these accounts to be reported under my personal Social Security number. \n\nI am not personally liable for the business accounts in question. \n\n2. Failure to Provide Required Documentation - Since XX/XX/year>, I have made repeated formal requests by mail and phone for : - Signed credit applications- Contracts or agreements proving personal liability - Any documents showing my authorization for personal credit reporting To date, no documentation has been produced, which constitutes a failure to validate the debt under federal law. \n\n3. Improper Handling of Disputes by XXXX and Credit Bureaus I submitted disputes with Equifax, XXXX, and XXXX regarding these accounts. \n\nThe credit bureaus and XXXX have failed to conduct proper reinvestigations, did not provide verification, and continue to report the accounts as valid. \n\nXXXX responses have been vague, evasive, and conclusively dismissive, without offering evidence or legal justification. \n\n4. Refusal to Cancel Accounts and Delete Personal Data I submitted written requests to cancel the following XXXX cards : XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX, and to remove my personal data from their systems. \n\nAll three companies have ignored or failed to fulfill these requests and have not confirmed account closures or data deletion. \n\nThis is a clear violation of multiple state and federal data protection statutes. \n\nViolations of Federal and State Law : Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq. \n1681s-2 ( a ) : Furnishing inaccurate or incomplete information to credit reporting agencies. \n\n1681s-2 ( b ) : Failing to properly investigate and correct disputed information. \n\n1681e ( b ) : Failure to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of information. \n\nFair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq. ( If third-party collection is involved ) 1692e : Misrepresentation of debt and false credit reporting. \n\n1692g : Failure to validate the debt upon written request. \n\nGramm-Leach-Bliley Act ( GLBA ) Failure to safeguard and handle personal financial data appropriately. \n\nFlorida Information Protection Act ( FIPA ) Failure to act on consumer data deletion and protection requests as required under Florida law. \n\nCalifornia Consumer Privacy Act ( CCPA ) ( if data held or processed in CA ) Noncompliance with verified consumer requests to delete or restrict access to personal data. \n\nDodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Title X ( Consumer Financial Protection Act ) Unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices ( UDAAP ) through misreporting, failure to validate, and ignoring legally mandated data and dispute rights. \n\nCompanys Response and Refusal to Comply : In response to my detailed complaint, XXXX sent a generic and irrelevant letter dated XX/XX/year>, which failed to address or investigate any of the specific legal violations I raised. The company refuses to provide any documentation, continues reporting disputed business accounts as personal liabilities, and now claims the matter is closed. This is not only unresponsiveit is a violation of consumer rights under the FCRA and other laws.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-05-20T22:01:25.000Z","issue":"Credit monitoring or identity theft protection services","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"349XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13627425","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-05-20T22:01:00.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Problem canceling credit monitoring or identify theft protection service"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["XXXX responses have been vague, evasive, and conclusively dismissive, <em>without</em> offering evidence or legal <em>justification</em>. \n\n4. Refusal to Cancel Accounts and Delete Personal Data I submitted written requests to cancel the following XXXX <em>cards</em> : XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX, and to remove my personal data from their systems. \n\nAll three companies have ignored or failed to fulfill these requests and have not confirmed account closures or data deletion."]},"sort":[9.908074,"13627425"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13617583","_score":9.908074,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Filed Against : XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), Citibank ( Citi ), and Macys Inc. \n\nNature of the Complaint : This is a formal complaint against XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), Citibank ( Citi ), and Macys Inc. for multiple violations of federal and state consumer protection laws. These violations involve the unauthorized reporting of business accounts under my personal credit file, failure to validate debt and provide requested documentation, inaccurate reporting to credit bureaus, and noncompliance with data privacy laws. I am requesting that the CFPB initiate a full investigation and refer this matter to the appropriate federal and state agencies, as applicable. \n\nSummary of Key Issues : 1. Unauthorized Personal Credit Reporting by XXXX XXXX is reporting three delinquent business credit card accounts to my personal credit reports with XXXX XXXX and XXXX. \n\nI never signed a personal guarantee, nor authorized these accounts to be reported under my personal Social Security number. \n\nI am not personally liable for the business accounts in question. \n\n2. Failure to Provide Required Documentation - Since XX/XX/year>, I have made repeated formal requests by mail and phone for : - Signed credit applications- Contracts or agreements proving personal liability - Any documents showing my authorization for personal credit reporting To date, no documentation has been produced, which constitutes a failure to validate the debt under federal law. \n\n3. Improper Handling of Disputes by XXXX and Credit Bureaus I submitted disputes with XXXX XXXX and XXXX regarding these accounts. \n\nThe credit bureaus and XXXX have failed to conduct proper reinvestigations, did not provide verification, and continue to report the accounts as valid. \n\nXXXX responses have been vague, evasive, and conclusively dismissive, without offering evidence or legal justification. \n\n4. Refusal to Cancel Accounts and Delete Personal Data I submitted written requests to cancel the following Macys/CitiXXXX cards XXXX XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX, and to remove my personal data from their systems. \n\nAll three companies have ignored or failed to fulfill these requests and have not confirmed account closures or data deletion. \n\nThis is a clear violation of multiple state and federal data protection statutes. \n\nViolations of Federal and State Law : Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq. \n1681s-2 ( a ) : Furnishing inaccurate or incomplete information to credit reporting agencies. \n\n1681s-2 ( b ) : Failing to properly investigate and correct disputed information. \n\n1681e ( b ) : Failure to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of information. \n\nFair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq. ( If third-party collection is involved ) 1692e : Misrepresentation of debt and false credit reporting. \n\n1692g : Failure to validate the debt upon written request. \n\nGramm-Leach-Bliley Act ( GLBA ) Failure to safeguard and handle personal financial data appropriately. \n\nFlorida Information Protection Act ( FIPA ) Failure to act on consumer data deletion and protection requests as required under Florida law. \n\nCalifornia Consumer Privacy Act ( CCPA ) ( if data held or processed in CA ) Noncompliance with verified consumer requests to delete or restrict access to personal data. \n\nDodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Title X ( Consumer Financial Protection Act ) Unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices ( UDAAP ) through misreporting, failure to validate, and ignoring legally mandated data and dispute rights. \n\nCompanys Response and Refusal to Comply : In response to my detailed complaint, XXXX sent a generic and irrelevant letter dated XX/XX/year>, which failed to address or investigate any of the specific legal violations I raised. The company refuses to provide any documentation, continues reporting disputed business accounts as personal liabilities, and now claims the matter is closed. This is not only unresponsiveit is a violation of consumer rights under the FCRA and other laws.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-05-20T22:01:26.000Z","issue":"Credit monitoring or identity theft protection services","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"349XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13617583","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CITIBANK, N.A.","date_received":"2025-05-20T22:01:00.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Problem canceling credit monitoring or identify theft protection service"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["XXXX responses have been vague, evasive, and conclusively dismissive, <em>without</em> offering evidence or legal <em>justification</em>. \n\n4. Refusal to Cancel Accounts and Delete Personal Data I submitted written requests to cancel the following Macys/CitiXXXX <em>cards</em> XXXX XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX, and to remove my personal data from their systems. \n\nAll three companies have ignored or failed to fulfill these requests and have not confirmed account closures or data deletion."]},"sort":[9.908074,"13617583"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13628866","_score":9.890349,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Filed Against : XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), XXXX ( XXXX ), and XXXX XXXX. Nature of the Complaint : This is a formal complaint against XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), XXXX ( XXXX ), and XXXX XXXX for multiple violations of federal and state consumer protection laws. These violations involve the unauthorized reporting of business accounts under my personal credit file, failure to validate debt and provide requested documentation, inaccurate reporting to credit bureaus, and noncompliance with data privacy laws. \n\nI am requesting that the CFPB initiate a full investigation and refer this matter to the appropriate federal and state agencies, as applicable. Summary of Key Issues : 1. Unauthorized Personal Credit Reporting by XXXX XXXX is reporting XXXX delinquent business credit card accounts to my personal credit reports with Equifax, XXXX XXXX XXXX. I never signed a personal guarantee, nor authorized these accounts to be reported under my personal Social Security number. I am not personally liable for the business accounts in question.\n\n2. Failure to Provide Required Documentation - Since XX/XX/year>, I have made repeated formal requests by mail and phone for : - Signed credit applications- Contracts or agreements proving personal liability - Any documents showing my authorization for personal credit reporting To date, no documentation has been produced, which constitutes a failure to validate the debt under federal law. \nXXXX. Improper Handling of Disputes by XXXX and Credit Bureaus I submitted disputes with Equifax, XXXX XXXX XXXX regarding these accounts. The credit bureaus and XXXX have failed to conduct proper reinvestigations, did not provide verification, and continue to report the accounts as valid. XXXX responses have been vague, evasive, and conclusively dismissive, without offering evidence or legal justification. \nXXXX. Refusal to Cancel Accounts and Delete Personal Data I submitted written requests to cancel the following XXXX cards XXXX XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX, and to remove my personal data from their systems. All three companies have ignored or failed to fulfill these requests and have not confirmed account closures or data deletion. This is a clear violation of multiple state and federal data protection statutes. Violations of Federal and State Law : Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq. 1681s-2 ( a ) : Furnishing inaccurate or incomplete information to credit reporting agencies. 1681s-2 ( b ) : Failing to properly investigate and correct disputed information. 1681e ( b ) : Failure to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of information. Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq. ( If third-party collection is involved ) 1692e : Misrepresentation of debt and false credit reporting. 1692g : Failure to validate the debt upon written request. Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act ( GLBA ) Failure to safeguard and handle personal financial data appropriately. Florida Information Protection Act ( FIPA ) Failure to act on consumer data deletion and protection requests as required under Florida law. California Consumer Privacy Act ( CCPA ) ( if data held or processed in CA ) Noncompliance with verified consumer requests to delete or restrict access to personal data. XXXX XXXX XXXX Reform Title X ( Consumer Financial Protection Act ) Unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices ( UDAAP ) through misreporting, failure to validate, and ignoring legally mandated data and dispute rights. Companys Response and Refusal to Comply : In response to my detailed complaint, XXXX sent a generic and irrelevant letter dated XX/XX/year>, which failed to address or investigate any of the specific legal violations I raised. The company refuses to provide any documentation, continues reporting disputed business accounts as personal liabilities, and now claims the matter is closed. \n\nThis is not only unresponsiveit is a violation of consumer rights under the FCRA and other laws.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-05-21T00:06:05.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"349XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13628866","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-05-21T00:05:37.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["XXXX responses have been vague, evasive, and conclusively dismissive, <em>without</em> offering evidence or legal <em>justification</em>. \nXXXX. Refusal to Cancel Accounts and Delete Personal Data I submitted written requests to cancel the following XXXX <em>cards</em> XXXX XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX, and to remove my personal data from their systems. All three companies have ignored or failed to fulfill these requests and have not confirmed account closures or data deletion."]},"sort":[9.890349,"13628866"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13608060","_score":9.890349,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Filed Against : American Express ( Amex ), XXXX ( XXXX ), and XXXX XXXX. Nature of the Complaint : This is a formal complaint against American Express ( Amex ), XXXX ( XXXX ), and XXXX XXXX for multiple violations of federal and state consumer protection laws. These violations involve the unauthorized reporting of business accounts under my personal credit file, failure to validate debt and provide requested documentation, inaccurate reporting to credit bureaus, and noncompliance with data privacy laws. \n\nI am requesting that the CFPB initiate a full investigation and refer this matter to the appropriate federal and state agencies, as applicable. Summary of XXXX XXXX : 1. Unauthorized Personal Credit Reporting by Amex Amex is reporting XXXX delinquent business credit card accounts to my personal credit reports with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. I never signed a personal guarantee, nor authorized these accounts to be reported under my personal Social Security number. I am not personally liable for the business accounts in question. \n2. Failure to Provide Required Documentation - Since XX/XX/year>, I have made repeated formal requests by mail and phone for : - Signed credit applications- Contracts or agreements proving personal liability - Any documents showing my authorization for personal credit reporting To date, no documentation has been produced, which constitutes a failure to validate the debt under federal law. \n3. Improper Handling of Disputes by Amex and Credit Bureaus I submitted disputes with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX regarding these accounts. The credit bureaus and Amex have failed to conduct proper reinvestigations, did not provide verification, and continue to report the accounts as valid. Amexs responses have been vague, evasive, and conclusively dismissive, without offering evidence or legal justification.\n\n4. Refusal to Cancel Accounts and Delete Personal Data I submitted written requests to cancel the following XXXX cards XXXX XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX, and to remove my personal data from their systems. All three companies have ignored or failed to fulfill these requests and have not confirmed account closures or data deletion. This is a clear violation of multiple state and federal data protection statutes. Violations of Federal and State Law : Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq. 1681s-2 ( a ) : Furnishing inaccurate or incomplete information to credit reporting agencies. 1681s-2 ( b ) : Failing to properly investigate and correct disputed information. 1681e ( b ) : Failure to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of information. Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq. ( If third-party collection is involved ) 1692e : Misrepresentation of debt and false credit reporting. 1692g : Failure to validate the debt upon written request. Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act ( GLBA ) Failure to safeguard and handle personal financial data appropriately. Florida Information Protection Act ( FIPA ) Failure to act on consumer data deletion and protection requests as required under Florida law. California Consumer Privacy Act ( CCPA ) ( if data held or processed in CA ) Noncompliance with verified consumer requests to delete or restrict access to personal data. XXXX XXXX XXXX Reform Title X ( Consumer Financial Protection Act ) Unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices ( UDAAP ) through misreporting, failure to validate, and ignoring legally mandated data and dispute rights. Companys Response and Refusal to Comply : In response to my detailed complaint, XXXX sent a generic and irrelevant letter dated XX/XX/year>, which failed to address or investigate any of the specific legal violations I raised. The company refuses to provide any documentation, continues reporting disputed business accounts as personal liabilities, and now claims the matter is closed. \n\nThis is not only unresponsiveit is a violation of consumer rights under the FCRA and other laws.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-05-21T00:06:05.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"349XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13608060","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY","date_received":"2025-05-20T23:57:00.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Amexs responses have been vague, evasive, and conclusively dismissive, <em>without</em> offering evidence or legal <em>justification</em>.\n\n4. Refusal to Cancel Accounts and Delete Personal Data I submitted written requests to cancel the following XXXX <em>cards</em> XXXX XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX, and to remove my personal data from their systems. All three companies have ignored or failed to fulfill these requests and have not confirmed account closures or data deletion."]},"sort":[9.890349,"13608060"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13618334","_score":9.889782,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Filed Against : XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), XXXX ( XXXX ), and XXXX XXXX. Nature of the Complaint : This is a formal complaint against XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), XXXX ( XXXX ), and XXXX XXXX for multiple violations of federal and state consumer protection laws. These violations involve the unauthorized reporting of business accounts under my personal credit file, failure to validate debt and provide requested documentation, inaccurate reporting to credit bureaus, and noncompliance with data privacy laws. \n\nI am requesting that the CFPB initiate a full investigation and refer this matter to the appropriate federal and state agencies, as applicable. Summary of XXXX XXXX : 1. Unauthorized Personal Credit Reporting by XXXX XXXX is reporting XXXX delinquent business credit card accounts to my personal credit reports with Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion. I never signed a personal guarantee, nor authorized these accounts to be reported under my personal Social Security number. I am not personally liable for the business accounts in question. \n2. Failure to Provide Required Documentation - Since XX/XX/year>, I have made repeated formal requests by mail and phone for : - Signed credit applications- Contracts or agreements proving personal liability - Any documents showing my authorization for personal credit reporting To date, no documentation has been produced, which constitutes a failure to validate the debt under federal law. \n3. Improper Handling of Disputes by XXXX and Credit Bureaus I submitted disputes with Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion regarding these accounts. The credit bureaus and XXXX have failed to conduct proper reinvestigations, did not provide verification, and continue to report the accounts as valid. XXXX responses have been vague, evasive, and conclusively dismissive, without offering evidence or legal justification. \n4. Refusal to Cancel Accounts and Delete Personal Data I submitted written requests to cancel the following XXXX cards XXXX XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX, and to remove my personal data from their systems. All three companies have ignored or failed to fulfill these requests and have not confirmed account closures or data deletion. This is a clear violation of multiple state and federal data protection statutes. Violations of Federal and State Law : Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq. 1681s-2 ( a ) : Furnishing inaccurate or incomplete information to credit reporting agencies. 1681s-2 ( b ) : Failing to properly investigate and correct disputed information. 1681e ( b ) : Failure to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of information. Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq. ( If third-party collection is involved ) 1692e : Misrepresentation of debt and false credit reporting. 1692g : Failure to validate the debt upon written request. Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act ( GLBA ) Failure to safeguard and handle personal financial data appropriately. Florida XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) Failure to act on consumer data deletion and protection requests as required under Florida law. California XXXX Privacy Act ( CCPA ) ( if data held or processed in CA ) Noncompliance with verified consumer requests to delete or restrict access to personal data. XXXX XXXX XXXX Reform Title X ( Consumer Financial Protection Act ) Unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices ( UDAAP ) through misreporting, failure to validate, and ignoring legally mandated data and dispute rights. Companys Response and Refusal to Comply : In response to my detailed complaint, XXXX sent a generic and irrelevant letter dated XX/XX/year>, which failed to address or investigate any of the specific legal violations I raised. The company refuses to provide any documentation, continues reporting disputed business accounts as personal liabilities, and now claims the matter is closed. \n\nThis is not only unresponsiveit is a violation of consumer rights under the FCRA and other laws.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-05-21T00:06:01.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"349XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13618334","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-05-21T00:05:37.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["XXXX responses have been vague, evasive, and conclusively dismissive, <em>without</em> offering evidence or legal <em>justification</em>. \n4. Refusal to Cancel Accounts and Delete Personal Data I submitted written requests to cancel the following XXXX <em>cards</em> XXXX XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX, and to remove my personal data from their systems. All three companies have ignored or failed to fulfill these requests and have not confirmed account closures or data deletion."]},"sort":[9.889782,"13618334"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13605779","_score":9.885063,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Filed Against : American Express ( Amex ), XXXX ( XXXX ), and XXXX XXXX. \n\nNature of the Complaint : This is a formal complaint against American Express ( Amex ), XXXX ( XXXX ), and XXXX XXXX for multiple violations of federal and state consumer protection laws. These violations involve the unauthorized reporting of business accounts under my personal credit file, failure to validate debt and provide requested documentation, inaccurate reporting to credit bureaus, and noncompliance with data privacy laws. I am requesting that the CFPB initiate a full investigation and refer this matter to the appropriate federal and state agencies, as applicable. \n\nSummary of Key Issues : 1. Unauthorized Personal Credit Reporting by Amex Amex is reporting three delinquent business credit card accounts to my personal credit reports with XXXX XXXX and XXXX. \n\nI never signed a personal guarantee, nor authorized these accounts to be reported under my personal Social Security number. \n\nI am not personally liable for the business accounts in question. \n\n2. Failure to Provide Required Documentation - Since XX/XX/year>, I have made repeated formal requests by mail and phone for : - Signed credit applications- Contracts or agreements proving personal liability - Any documents showing my authorization for personal credit reporting To date, no documentation has been produced, which constitutes a failure to validate the debt under federal law. \n\n3. Improper Handling of Disputes by Amex and Credit Bureaus I submitted disputes with XXXX XXXX and XXXX  regarding these accounts. \n\nThe credit bureaus and Amex have failed to conduct proper reinvestigations, did not provide verification, and continue to report the accounts as valid. \n\nAmexs responses have been vague, evasive, and conclusively dismissive, without offering evidence or legal justification. \n\n4. Refusal to Cancel Accounts and Delete Personal Data I submitted written requests to cancel the following XXXX/Amex cards : XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX, and to remove my personal data from their systems. \n\nAll three companies have ignored or failed to fulfill these requests and have not confirmed account closures or data deletion. \n\nThis is a clear violation of multiple state and federal data protection statutes. \n\nViolations of Federal and State Law : Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq. \n1681s-2 ( a ) : Furnishing inaccurate or incomplete information to credit reporting agencies. \n\n1681s-2 ( b ) : Failing to properly investigate and correct disputed information. \n\n1681e ( b ) : Failure to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of information. \n\nFair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq. ( If third-party collection is involved ) 1692e : Misrepresentation of debt and false credit reporting.\n\n1692g : Failure to validate the debt upon written request. \n\nGramm-Leach-Bliley Act ( GLBA ) Failure to safeguard and handle personal financial data appropriately. \n\nFlorida Information Protection Act ( FIPA ) Failure to act on consumer data deletion and protection requests as required under Florida law. \n\nCalifornia Consumer Privacy Act ( CCPA ) ( if data held or processed in CA ) Noncompliance with verified consumer requests to delete or restrict access to personal data. \n\nDodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Title X ( Consumer Financial Protection Act ) Unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices ( UDAAP ) through misreporting, failure to validate, and ignoring legally mandated data and dispute rights. \n\nCompanys Response and Refusal to Comply : In response to my detailed complaint, Amex sent a generic and irrelevant letter dated XX/XX/year>, which failed to address or investigate any of the specific legal violations I raised. The company refuses to provide any documentation, continues reporting disputed business accounts as personal liabilities, and now claims the matter is closed. This is not only unresponsiveit is a violation of consumer rights under the FCRA and other laws.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-05-20T22:01:29.000Z","issue":"Credit monitoring or identity theft protection services","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"349XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13605779","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY","date_received":"2025-05-20T21:49:13.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Problem canceling credit monitoring or identify theft protection service"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Amexs responses have been vague, evasive, and conclusively dismissive, <em>without</em> offering evidence or legal <em>justification</em>. \n\n4. Refusal to Cancel Accounts and Delete Personal Data I submitted written requests to cancel the following XXXX/Amex <em>cards</em> : XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX, and to remove my personal data from their systems. \n\nAll three companies have ignored or failed to fulfill these requests and have not confirmed account closures or data deletion."]},"sort":[9.885063,"13605779"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16984734","_score":9.789797,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"My name is XXXX XXXX XXXX, and I am XXXX years old. I have been a loyal Navy Federal Credit Union member for many years. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I received an official letter from Navy Federal ( Ref # XXXX ) stating that my debit card ending XXXX was suspended on XX/XX/XXXX and will remain suspended for a full year until XX/XX/XXXX because my debit-card history demonstrates a violation of the Debit Card Disclosure. ( See XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX ). \n\nThis action has left me without electronic access to my own money and has placed me in an immediate financial crisis. \n\nWhat Happened I am an XXXXyear-old retiree living on a fixed income. My Social Security, pension, and retirement deposits are routed through my Navy Federal account. I have always been diligent and immediately reported every fraudulent transaction that appeared on my account.\n\nLike millions of Americans, my personal information has been compromised in national data breaches that were completely beyond my control. I was the victim not the cause of those fraudulent events.\n\nDespite my full cooperation with Navy Federals fraud department, the credit union has revoked my debit-card privileges for one year and has refused to provide any alternative means of reasonable access. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I spoke with a Navy Federal supervisor who suggested I could use a prepaid card instead. I explained that, at my age, I am not technologically savvy and do not understand app-based or reloadable systems. That solution still prevents me from safely retrieving or managing my funds and does not meet the needs of an elderly consumer. \n\nBecause of this restriction, I must now travel to a branch in person simply to withdraw cash. The branch is not easily accessible, so I must pay for rides to and from the location. This is physically exhausting, financially burdensome, and unsafe. Carrying cash home each time exposes me to serious risk of theft or loss. \n\nIt will take at least two pay cycles to transfer my pension and retirement deposits to a different institution. Until then, I am effectively locked out of my income, unable to pay bills or purchase necessities safely. \n\nViolations and Regulatory Concerns 1. Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA, 15 U.S.C. 1693 et seq. ) Navy Federals own Debit Card Disclosure ( 6 Liability for Failure to Complete Electronic Fund Transfers ) promises to complete authorized transfers correctly By disabling my card for a year, Navy Federal has denied me the ability to perform lawful electronic fund transfers, violating the EFTAs guarantee of consumer access to electronic payments.\n\n2. Unfair and Abusive Practice ( 12 U.S.C. 5531 ; CFPB UDAAP Standards ) A blanket one-year debit-card suspension for a verified fraud victim causes substantial, unavoidable harm and serves no legitimate purpose. It is an unfair and abusive act, especially when applied to an XXXX consumer who acted responsibly and cooperated fully. \n\nXXXX. Breach of Good Faith and Fair Dealing ( 11 Ownership and Cancellation ) While Navy Federal reserves the right to revoke cards at any time, that discretion must still be exercised in good faith. Enforcing a year-long ban without review or accommodation is arbitrary, punitive, and contrary to the implied covenant of fair dealing. \n\nXXXX. Age-Based Disparate Impact ( Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. 1691 ) Younger members who experience fraud are routinely reissued cards after verification. Denying an XXXX senior a replacement constitutes age-based disparate treatment, intentional or not. \n\nXXXX. Elder Financial Exploitation and Accessibility ( CFPB Bulletin 2016-07 ) Federal guidance directs financial institutions to protect not endanger older adults. Forcing me to handle cash and rely on unfamiliar technology increases my exposure to theft, fraud, and hardship, directly contradicting CFPB elder-protection policy. \n\nWhy Immediate Action Is Required I can not survive for two months without safe, convenient access to my income. I depend on my debit card to purchase groceries, medication, and essential items.\n\nNavy Federals actions are unreasonable, harmful, and discriminatory. Leaving an elderly woman without a debit card for a year is indefensible and places me at serious financial and personal risk.\n\nRequested Relief I respectfully request that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau require Navy Federal Credit Union to : Immediately reinstate my debit-card access or issue a new monitored, low-limit, or chip-protected card within 10 business days.\n\nProvide a written explanation detailing the justification and policy authority for a one-year suspension.\n\nOffer reasonable senior accommodations that do not depend on prepaid or app-based tools.\n\nReimburse documented transportation or service costs incurred while accessing funds during this restriction.\n\nConduct a policy review ensuring Navy Federals fraud-prevention measures comply with EFTA and do not unfairly impact elderly or vulnerable members.\n\nIn conclusion, This matter is urgent. Navy Federal has knowingly placed an XXXX consumer in financial jeopardy by denying access to her own funds for a year, despite clear evidence that she was the victim of data breaches and not the cause of fraud. \n\nI ask the CFPB to intervene immediately, enforce compliance with federal consumer-protection laws, and compel Navy Federal Credit Union to restore my debit-card access without delay. \n\nThank you for your prompt attention and protection of senior consumers like me.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-03T21:50:14.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"21217","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"16984734","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","date_received":"2025-11-03T20:44:06.000Z","state":"MD","company_public_response":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","sub_issue":"Problem using a debit or ATM card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Breach of Good Faith and Fair Dealing ( 11 Ownership and Cancellation ) While Navy Federal reserves the right to revoke <em>cards</em> at any time, that discretion must still be exercised in good faith. Enforcing a year-long ban <em>without</em> review or accommodation is arbitrary, punitive, and contrary to the implied covenant of fair dealing. \n\nXXXX. Age-Based Disparate Impact ( Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. 1691 ) Younger members who experience fraud are routinely reissued <em>cards</em> after verification."]},"sort":[9.789797,"16984734"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3999009","_score":9.569801,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"Mr. XXXX in XXXX opened an account with JP Morgan Stanly Chase Bank ( Chase ) for the purpose of receiving direct deposit through a former employer XXXX XXXX located at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Oklahoma XXXX. It is undisputable that at this time period ( CHASE ) had a financial institution located at XXXX and XXXX which is where MrXXXX XXXX opened a banking account. However, Mr. XXXX in around about the end of XXXX visited Chase Bank located at XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX to open a banking account and inquire about products i.e., secured credit cards. Nevertheless Chase refused to allow Mr. XXXX to open an account attributed to suspicious activity from XXXX. Subsequently, attributed to the mishandling of information by the XXXX XXXX XXXX Mr. XXXX private email account was spear phish leading to misappropriation and violation of privacy rights. In addition, because of the mishandling of information Mr. XXXX was schemed resulting in a forged instrument being cashed unconsciously. Consequently after realizing the provocation which was taking place behind the scenes Mr. XXXX filed a security freeze through XXXX XXXX given the adverse action taken against Mr. XXXX as a result of fraud. Subsequently, after placing a security freeze attributed to identity theft, Chase Bank sent communication offering Mr. XXXX free identity monitoring tools even though no allegations were alleged against the financial institution. Moreover, the financial institution mentioned motives associated to a complaints filed against the XXXX  XXXX XXXX which resulted for spear phishing. Furthermore, it is believed that Chase Bank and XXXX  XXXX XXXX  conspire against Mr. XXXX to deny him the opportunity to establish credit worthiness. Furthermore Chase refused to allow Mr. XXXX the right to utilize its service even after Mr. XXXX attempted to bring the account in to good standing. Chase despite the suspicious activity filed to provide the consumer with a the reason in writing under the ( FCRA ) concerning its decision to allow Mr. XXXX to utilize its product. In addition, the financial institution determination for denying access to bank service was to disallow Mr. XXXX access to credit building tools given the policy change which emphasizes access to credit tools is now based on the consumer having a banking account. Because the consumer can no long access an account with the financial institution certain credit tools can no longer be accessed. As an XXXX XXXX once being ignorant  of the financial institution it is a travesty that XXXX-XXXX can utilize these banks to store their money for the utilization of funds at the banks capricious will just to have those funds available for others of a different classification to employ at their disposal while other uneducated individual or unaware of the opportunities these tools create. Furthermore the real predator and criminals subterfuge the process of certain individual clandestinely being in possession of private information. It is believed that Chase bank is partly responsible for the spear phishing which led to Mr. XXXX unfortunate circumstance. Nevertheless, Chase Bank possessed the power to file criminal charges for depository fraud but filed to pursue those options, but instead affiliates of Chase being held to a higher standard used identify theft to disqualify Mr. XXXX. It is evident how these institution have been established over four hundred years of compensation thus if the bank is concerned about anything it feels occurred, the the matter should have been handle jurisdictionally instead of being handled subtilty. It is evident that these institutions deny XXXX XXXX the same equalities that enjoy. If the institution is keeping records then reparations from 400 years of forced labor then should be exacted. It is highly incredulous that people working in these institutions or even high level officials misappropriate information and process behind closed door to deny people of a certain race an opportunity to redeem themselves. In fact the very foundation of this country was built on a XXXX of mercy nonetheless for the love of money revenge is exacted without justification. In conclusion MrXXXX XXXX reputation has been diminished and denied the same equalities as other. It is believe these actions were taken because of race, color, and religion [ sic ] has suffer grave injury because of the actions of Chase. Thank You","date_sent_to_company":"2020-12-08T22:54:42.000Z","issue":"Opening an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"741XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3999009","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","date_received":"2020-12-08T20:39:51.000Z","state":"OK","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Unable to open an account"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["In fact the very foundation of this country was built on a XXXX of mercy nonetheless for the love of money revenge is exacted <em>without</em> <em>justification</em>. In conclusion MrXXXX XXXX reputation has been diminished and denied the same equalities as other. It is believe these actions were taken because of race, color, and religion [ sic ] has suffer grave injury because of the actions of Chase. Thank You"]},"sort":[9.569801,"3999009"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"12566866","_score":9.425446,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"Subject : Complaint Against XXXX XXXX Unjustified Account XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) Issue Type : Unauthorized Account Closure & Lack of Consumer Protection To add on to the question beforehand before I go into detail about what happened : \" I requested to know why my account was closed unjustified. I haven't done anything illegal on the account. The only somewhat suspicious thing is the fact that money for services that I gained was sent to bitcoin. I explained to them that my sister ( and at one time, my account got hacked hence the \" someone else '' ) and someone else hacked my account and sent my money to themselves on bitcoin. When I told them about it, they said I couldn't get my money back. The amount was over a few XXXX after I calculated it I'm pretty sure. '' But, to go into detail about everything, -- - I am filing this complaint against Cash App for wrongfully closing my account without justification and refusing to provide transparency regarding their decision. My account was suddenly terminated, and despite multiple attempts to request clarification, Cash App has refused to disclose any specific reason. They vaguely stated that I \" violated their Terms of Service '' without providing any details or proof of wrongdoing. \n\nConcerning the \" Failure to Protect Consumers from Unauthorized Transactions '' : Prior to this unjustified closure, my account had been compromised due to security vulnerabilities within Cash Apps system. A hacker ( who was later identified as my sibling and another individual ) transferred my money into XXXX and sent it to themselves. When I reported this fraudulent activity, Cash App refused to return my funds, despite clear evidence of unauthorized access AND the fact of how I was getting those funds ( I was doing nails and a lot of other side hustles for money at the time ). The total stolen amount was a lot I will just say. Instead of assisting me as a victim of fraud, Cash App allowed the unauthorized transactions to proceed and then punished me by shutting down my account. Their lack of adequate fraud protection directly enabled this theft, and their unwillingness to investigate the issue further suggests gross negligence. I have heard of them doing this a lot before, but I was not aware how bad it was until it happened to me. You would think a company that is already failing and declining daily would want to actually help their consumers... I also am skimming over what I was writing and remembered ... Their \" borrowing system. '' The second my limit turned to {$100.00}, my account was suspended. I was paying Cashapp back consistently for their borrowing system. I actually owe them money, but I can not pay it back because I have restrictions on my accounts. My banks and cards were removed and the app will not allow me to add them back. \n\nConcerning the \" Unfair and Deceptive Business Practices, '' Cash App engages in deceptive and unfair business practices by : - Closing consumer accounts without due process or the opportunity for an appeal. \n\n- Failing to disclose specific reasons for account closures, leaving consumers without answers. \n\n- Allowing scammers and unauthorized transactions to go unchecked** while penalizing legitimate users. \n\n- Denying rightful refunds for fraudulent transactions, despite federal regulations requiring financial institutions to protect consumers. \n\nThis behavior raises serious concerns about the companys compliance with consumer protection laws. A financial service that facilitates fraudulent transactions and then punishes victims instead of helping them is a direct risk to the public. I have been reading upon articles and even XXXX sub posts and seeing I am not the only one who has fallen victim to these actions. Even my own XXXX has gone through this and she barely used cashapp. \n\nNow, here is my personal demand for resolution. \nI am requesting : XXXX. A full explanation for my account closure, with documentation proving the alleged Terms of Service violation. \n\nXXXX. The immediate reopening of my account due to the unjustified and baseless reasoning behind its termination. \n\nXXXX. A reimbursement for funds lost due to Cash Apps failure to protect my account. \n\nXXXX. An investigation into Cash Apps fraud-handling policies, as their negligence enables bad actors while harming innocent users. Not just with my case, but with everyone.\n\nIf this matter is not resolved, I will escalate my complaint further by contacting state and federal regulatory agencies, financial watchdog groups, and legal representatives to explore further action. Cash Apps refusal to protect consumers or provide fair dispute resolutions should be investigated to prevent future harm to others. \n\nI expect a prompt response from Cash App, as this issue raises serious concerns about their commitment to ethical business practices.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-03-19T18:37:00.000Z","issue":"Managing, opening, or closing your mobile wallet account","sub_product":"Mobile or digital wallet","zip_code":"705XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"12566866","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Block, Inc.","date_received":"2025-03-19T18:07:03.000Z","state":"LA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["They vaguely stated that I \" <em>violated</em> their Terms of Service '' <em>without</em> providing any details or proof of wrongdoing. \n\nConcerning the \" Failure to Protect Consumers from Unauthorized Transactions '' : Prior to this unjustified closure, my account had been compromised due to <em>security</em> vulnerabilities within Cash Apps system. A hacker ( who was later identified as my sibling and another individual ) transferred my money into XXXX and sent it to themselves."]},"sort":[9.425446,"12566866"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7264038","_score":7.2013874,"_source":{"product":"Credit card or prepaid card","complaint_what_happened":"The purpose of this letter is to escalate an ongoing complex dispute with Bank of America that has remained unresolved since XX/XX/XXXX. I am reporting Bank of America to the CFPD for violating consumer laws. And as an American born citizen and a customer of Bank of America for 46 years I put my trust into the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau for review and complete resolution. \n\nDuring my 46 years of banking with Bank of America I have had excellent banking with an excellent credit rating. My banking transactions were notably predictable modest transactions. Then in XX/XX/XXXX due to the lack of cybersecurity BofA promises, BofA obviously failed to meet the compliance standards ( and my account was at risk caused by privileged users ). In addition, Bank of America is unable to manage and control third party vendors. Unfortunately, my bank allowed a criminal to gain access to my account. He made multiple fraudulent transactions, and it is alarming my bank does not know how to fix it. Instead of treating me as a respectable long-term customer, they have put me on the defensive by outrageously creating a fake credit card in my name without my permission to bill me for their mistakes. Below is an overview of banking complexities that would never have occurred had they not issued a fake credit card in my name. Back up documentation is available upon request. \n\nBofA failed in their critical responsibility to provide safe and secure banking. The banking breach was cause for immediate attention, but BofA has seriously declined in customer service. Ive made hundreds of calls to BofA, sent emails to VPs, made appointments in person, sent documentation by certified mail, and sent a Demand Letter to get someones attention. Nothing happened. The banking problems remain unaddressed. Phone calls to BofA are avoided through endless re-routing from one department to the next. Agents repeat the same script I cant help you, youve reached the wrong department, let me transfer you. It is impossible to connect with a bank agent, and if you finally do, they simply dont know what to do - or how to handle it. \nIt's obvious the delay tactics are to BofAs advantage. And contracting with substandard third party services are to the bank 's advantage. Problems such as deceitful transactions can not be easily traced and the bank therefore is unaccountable. \n\nBank of America unlawfully created a fake credit card in my name without my permission. A customer service agent informed me they went back to XXXX before I banked with BofA to create a new credit card in my name. Bank of America then duplicated charges multiple times and applied the same transactions to several credit cards. Then they sent me a bill for the fake credit card ( XXXX ) in the amount of {$14000.00}. It is not my debt. At the end of this letter, you will find a brief recap of bank mistakes and duplicated charges as an example. Statements are available upon request. \n\nThese bank problems began in XX/XX/XXXX when a criminal named XXXX XXXX hacked into my account through XXXX and gained access to my entire banking. It was reported but the Fraud department did not investigate him. The bank agent informed me he made XXXX illegal transactions. XXXX {$1600.00} and XXXX {$1900.00} and a cash advance from my credit card XXXX for {$3900.00}. This banking breach caused a domino effect on multiple accounts, making it exceedingly difficult to resolve. BofA did refund Fraud activity {$1600.00} and {$1900.00} only. The fraudulent XXXX transactions caused an overdraft on my account which resulted in many other banking problems I am stuck with because the bank does not know how to fix it. \n\nBofA negligence & online bill pay managed by a 3rd party service. Someone at the bank had access to my account and during this time a {$10000.00} payment was processed to XXXXXXXX XXXX in error. Who XXXX XXXXXXXX makes a {$10000.00} payment online? That should have been a red flag for the bank, but they just let it go even though in 46 years Ive never had {$10000.00} in my account- ever. I caught it at once and called BofA XXXX Bill Pay Division ( 3rd party service ). They were extremely nervous, but they also refused to stop the transaction. Naturally, this caused overdraft activity. I was able to remedy this myself by contacting XXXX Bank who refunded the amount three weeks later. I deposited it into my checking account, and I immediately made an appointment in person at the XXXX Branch to pay off all my accounts. They gave me a confirmation number, but unfortunately, later I learned BofA applied that payment to the wrong account. Bank of America has become simply incorrigible. \n\nBank of America then ruined my credit rating. 46 years of excellent credit went down the tubes overnight as I realized BofA would rather destroy me, than help me. Instead of acknowledging me as a long-time loyal customer, I am treated like a criminal. Their lack of banking security and incompetency put me in this awful position, and now I am left to try to defend myself without legal representation due to the unfair arbitration clause. The unfair arbitration law must change It is criminal. \n\nThe surmounting stress of this unresolved bank issue has caused irreparable damage to my health. It is devastating my bank has turned against me and is threatening my future livelihood. It is a living nightmare that never ends. I received a BoA letter that states my account will go to Charge Off on XX/XX/XXXX, if I dont make a payment towards $ XXXX a debt that is not mine its not real but created through my bank misappropriating charges and credits. \n\nI must work to supplement my social security income and a poor credit rating will hinder me from gainful employment. This year, my earning ability was significantly reduced due to the hours needed to focus on fixing this banking problem. I am worried I will not be able to get credit if needed in case of a medical emergency. There is no safety net as I have no family or support ; it is life threatening as it could lead to homelessness. \n\nI am reaching out to CFPB to resolve these unlawful practices of Bank of America. For myself and millions of other customers that have had similar insufferable experiences with this bank. It is hard to understand why so many government agencies turn a blind eye to Bank of Americas unlawful practices. Even though this bank continues to be sued for billions, no one will stop the repeating criminal banking behavior. Our Banking laws must change to really protect consumers and more importantly enforced so Bank of America can no longer have the free will to destroy peoples lives. \n\nBank of America would not provide me with any justification or accounting of the transactions so I created this chart that will illustrate the unnecessarily complex mess the bank made. They must fix it! I expect Bank of America to correct the multiple duplicated billings ; to close the illegal cc XXXX issued in my name without my permission. Close that card at a XXXX balance and mail me an updated statement. I have paid off all my accounts with Bank of America. I have no real debt with this bank. I would also like Bank of America to remove the false debit ( s ) from all credit agencies and restore my perfect credit rating by the end of XX/XX/XXXX. I will not accept phone calls from Bank of America because they are liars. All communication must be in writing. \n\nIve been consumed by this mess and there is no extra time to work on the EDD income and the State of XXXX money sent on a special card. Bank of America closed my account, so I no longer have access to that information or those funds. That also remains unaccountable and unresolved by the bank. \n\nXXXX BANK OF AMERICA MIAPPROPRIATED FUNDS - XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX - XXXX XXXX BANK OF AMERICA ERRORS - MULTIPLE CHARGES ON SEVERAL CARDS XX/XX/XXXX cc XXXX first charge on cc XXXX {$9600.00} 1st time wrong card XX/XX/XXXX cc XXXX second charge on cc XXXX {$9600.00} 2nd time on fake card XX/XX/XXXX cc XXXX third charge on cc XXXX {$9600.00} Fake CC XXXX confusion Total Bank Errors {$28000.00} XX/XX/XXXX cc XXXX minus XXXX credit on cc XXXX $ ( XXXX ) One transaction billed three times - fix it {$19000.00} MULTIPLE BANK ERRORS TRIPLE BILLING BANK OF AMERICA UNLAWFULLY CREATED A FAKE CREDIT CARD IN MY NAME XX/XX/XXXX cc XXXX Bank Error Charged {$3900.00} 2 x on XXXX {$7800.00} XXXX CHARGES XX/XX/XXXX cc XXXX XXXX CREDIT $ ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX transaction billed 2x & 1 Credit Balance {$3900.00} XX/XX/XXXX cc XXXX Fake card cause unnecessary confusion with misappropriated charges and misapplied payments $ ( XXXX ) BOFA APPLIED PAYMENT TO WRONG ACCT ACTION TO BE TAKEN : BANK OF AMERICA MUST CORRECT THIS ERRONOUS ACCOUNT IMMEDIATELY XXXX XXXX Fake Credit Card ( XXXX ) Statement XXXX ERROROUS BILLING ON XXXX AND DUPLICATED BILLING MULTIBLE TIMES ON SEVERAL CARDS RECAPPED ABOVE {$16000.00} Interest accumulating ACTION TO BE TAKEN -BofA REMOVE IMPROPER DEBT AND RESTORE MY EXCELENT CREDIT XXXX All Credit Agencies Remove this banking information from all Credit Agencies. Restore my credit rating ACTION TO BE TAKEN - BOFA FIX PAYMENTS MADE TO CORRECT ACCOUNTS XX/XX/XXXX cc XXXX Other payment made in person with agent $ ( XXXX ) confirmation XXXX XX/XX/XXXX cc XXXX Statement XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX XXXX {$11000.00} Paid in person at XXXX branch $ ( XXXX ) confirmation XXXX Thank you for taking the time to read my letter. I look forward to hearing from you with a positive resolution to this matter. I can be reached in writing at the following contact information. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2023-07-17T16:31:14.000Z","issue":"Other features, terms, or problems","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"94536","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7264038","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2023-07-17T15:48:36.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Other problem"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Bank of America would not provide me with any <em>justification</em> or accounting of the transactions so I created this chart that will illustrate the unnecessarily complex mess the bank made. They must fix it! I expect Bank of America to correct the multiple duplicated billings ; to close the illegal cc XXXX issued in my name <em>without</em> my permission. Close that card at a XXXX balance and mail me an updated statement. I have paid off all my accounts with Bank of America."]},"sort":[7.2013874,"7264038"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"15397819","_score":7.0103297,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Dear Sir/Madam, I am submitting this formal complaint regarding multiple inaccuracies on my credit report, including wrong addresses, late payments, charge-offs, and collections. These errors have caused me financial harm, undue stress, and violate my rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq., and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq. \nWrong Address Reporting XXXX XXXX, XXXX, TX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, OK XXXX Law Cited : FCRA XXXX ( b ) requires the use of reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy. Wrong addresses are clear violations of this principle. Further, under FCRA XXXX, disputed information must be corrected or deleted if unverifiable. \nStory ( Extended ) : Reporting addresses that I have never lived at or even been associated with has created unnecessary confusion. These wrong addresses suggest I have connections, homes, or obligations that are entirely false. Every time a lender reviews my credit file, they see addresses tied to me that dont belong, and this raises red flags as if I am hiding something or have unstable residency. Beyond this, the inclusion of false addresses exposes me to the serious risk of identity theft, where unknown individuals with those addresses could potentially link fraudulent accounts to my report. The presence of these wrong addresses not only violates the law but also damages my credibility, making me look irresponsible or even deceptive when in reality these entries are completely inaccurate. \n\nXXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Duplicate & Late Payments Issue : Duplicate negative reporting Balance {$120000.00} Opened XX/XX/XXXX Law : FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) & XXXX ( b ). Reporting a duplicate account to reflect the same debt more than once is misleading and unlawful. \nStory ( Extended ) : This is essentially a duplicate or related record of the XXXX account above. Having both accounts reported makes it look like I have double the derogatory history from XXXX single debt, exaggerating the damage to my credit file. This is deceptive to creditors and highly prejudicial against me. Because duplicates unfairly double the impact of a negative record, they create inaccurate impressions about my credit history. Such reporting is clearly prohibited under federal law and must be deleted to meet the standard of accuracy. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Charge Off Issue : Charge Off {$4900.00} Opened XX/XX/XXXX Law : FCRA requires strict accuracy. FDCPA XXXX prohibits false reporting of debt. \nStory ( Extended ) : This listing of charge off is not reflective of the true history of this account. It gives the impression that I abandoned a legal obligation without addressing it, when in truth, there are disputes and circumstances surrounding this debt that were not investigated or validated. Because of this charge-off status, my creditworthiness appears severely damaged, causing me to be denied critical financial products such as loans and credit cards. Each time a bank sees charge-off, they assume I am unreliable, when in reality the reporting is unfair and lacks legal validation. The distress of being treated as financially irresponsible in situations like applying for housing or credit cards is humiliating and harmful. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Charge Off Issue : Charge Off {$1100.00} Opened XX/XX/XXXX Law : FDCPA XXXX ( b ) requires full validation prior to collection or reporting. Unverified information must be deleted under FCRA XXXX. \nStory ( Extended ) : I raised disputes on this account, yet it continues to report as a charge-off as if no investigation was made. Allowing inaccurate or unverified derogatory remarks to remain on my file demonstrates negligence in compliance. Every time a creditor denies me, I am faced with explaining a charge-off that should not even exist if validation had been properly obtained. This undermines both my dignity and confidence as a consumer. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Charge Off Issue : Charge Off {$1000.00} Opened XX/XX/XXXX Law : Same as above FCRA XXXX ; FDCPA XXXX ( b ). \nStory ( Extended ) : Having such small amounts reported as charge-offs still delivers devastating weight to my profile. Even if the debt is disputed or unvalidated, the mere presence of a charge-off makes lenders view me in the worst possible light. I deal with anxiety and worry every time I apply for credit, fearing this unjust reporting will be held against me. My financial reputation, built with effort, is being torn apart unfairly by information that can not even be verified. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Late Payments Issue : Balance {$12000.00} Opened : XX/XX/XXXX Late Payments Reported Law : FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) makes reporting of late payments older than 7 years illegal. \nStory ( Extended ) : The lateness reported here is so old that under the law it is legally prohibited from remaining. Yet the continued presence burdens me every day. Student loans already bring stress and challenges; compounding that with illegal negative reporting only worsens consumer hardships. These obsolete late payments misrepresent my financial responsibility to any prospective lender or employer. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Two Accounts, Duplicate Charge Offs Issue : Charge Offs Balances {$4800.00} and {$11000.00} Both Opened XX/XX/XXXX Law : Reporting duplicate accounts creates false impressions of debt load a violation of FCRA accuracy standards.\n\nStory ( Extended ) : The duplicate reporting of these accounts has made it appear as though I owe significantly more than I do. This exaggerates my liabilities and portrays a misleading image of my repayment ability. The impact has been devastating, leading lenders to believe my debt-to-income ratio is far greater than reality, causing adverse credit decisions. This kind of unfair duplication has no justification and must be removed immediately. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Charge Off Issue : Charge Off {$5000.00} Opened XX/XX/XXXX Law : FCRA demands all derogatory information must be verified ; FDCPA requires validation upon dispute. \nStory ( Extended ) : I disputed this account, yet the charge off still stands. Unverified reporting is not legal. This tradeline presents me as someone who abandons repayments, tarnishing my profile in the eyes of future creditors. These false impressions have caused embarrassment and rejection. Without proper validation, maintenance of this tradeline is punishment without legal basis. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  High Balance : {$3900.00} Date Opened : XX/XX/XXXX Type : Charge Off Issue : This account is being reported as Charge Off without showing proper payment records, settlement terms, or supporting details. The reporting is incomplete and does not present an accurate, full picture. \nLaw : Under FCRA XXXX ( a ), when a consumer disputes an account, the credit reporting agency must conduct a reasonable investigation. If complete and verified information can not be obtained, the tradeline must be corrected or deleted. Incomplete reporting makes the entry misleading, which is prohibited under FCRA XXXX ( b ). \nStory : During the time this debt allegedly charged off, I was going through severe personal and financial hardship, struggling to cover even basic expenses. I had reached out for assistance, but the limited options available at the time left me vulnerable. Despite my attempts to communicate, the account was abruptly charged off, and now it reflects negatively without any context that shows my true efforts to resolve matters. This incomplete reporting makes me appear irresponsible to lenders, when, in fact, my situation was XXXX of hardship, not recklessness. Because of this account, I was denied approval for a personal loan that could have helped consolidate and manage my expenses responsibly. As a result, my financial setback deepened unnecessarily. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX High Balance : {$490.00} Date Opened : XX/XX/XXXX Type : Collection Issue : This appears to be a repeat of the earlier XXXX  collection account, reported again with slightly modified details. Such multiple listings distort my credit history and create artificially severe negative impact. \nLaw : Under FDCPA XXXX ( XXXX ) ( A ), misrepresenting the legal status of debt or presenting one debt as multiple is considered a deceptive collection practice. In addition, FCRA requires accuracy and prohibits duplicate or misleading reporting.\n\nStory : This small debt is exaggerated into a bigger issue by being reported twice under different entries. For a consumer trying to recover and rebuild, this is devastating. Even though the alleged balance is relatively low, the harm it causes by being doubled-up on my credit file is extreme. When I recently applied for renters insurance for my familys apartment, I was marked as high risk solely because of these repeated collections, making it harder and more expensive for my family to have even basic security. The unfairness of the situation can not be overstated my reputation and opportunities are being unfairly destroyed by a debt that should never appear twice. \nFinal Appeal and Demand Request for Action : XXXX. Conduct a thorough investigation of all disputed accounts and addresses. \nXXXX. Correct or delete all inaccurate, misleading, or unverifiable entries. \nXXXX. Provide written confirmation of corrections and deletions. \nXXXX. Investigate the credit furnishers for compliance with FCRA and FDCPA requirements. \nI request that CFPB intervene to ensure these inaccuracies are corrected promptly. Continued reporting of these erroneous accounts is a violation of federal law, and I reserve the right to pursue legal remedies if necessary. \nThank you for your immediate attention. I expect acknowledgment within the 30-day period required by FCRA, with a full resolution communicated in writing.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-08-21T00:42:08.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"748XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"15397819","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-08-21T00:36:57.000Z","state":"OK","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>Without</em> proper validation, maintenance of this tradeline is punishment <em>without</em> legal basis. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  High Balance : {$3900.00} Date Opened : XX/XX/XXXX Type : Charge Off Issue : This account is being reported as Charge Off <em>without</em> showing proper payment records, settlement terms, or supporting details. The reporting is incomplete and does not present an accurate, full picture."]},"sort":[7.0103297,"15397819"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16828131","_score":6.2711844,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I, XXXX XXXX, submit this formal complaint seeking immediate investigation, enforcement, and corrective action against Equifax LLC for a severe and arbitrary XXXX decrease in my credit score that occurred between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nThis drop followed the lawful opening of a new credit card account and an increase in my utilization rate yet occurred without any hard inquiry, late payment, derogatory mark, or adverse credit event. Every payment on all my accounts has been made on time. \n\nAs a XXXX consumer living below 150 % of the federal poverty level, who depends entirely on Social Security XXXX XXXX ( SSDI ) benefits totaling {$16000.00} per year, I assert that this action by Equifax is unreasonable, discriminatory, and unlawful. It has inflicted measurable financial and psychological harm, restricting my access to essential credit opportunities and impeding my economic stability. \n\nThis complaint arises under and implicates the following laws and standards : Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.\n\nEqual Credit Opportunity Act ( ECOA ), 15 U.S.C. 1691 et seq.\n\nFair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq.\n\nGramm-Leach-Bliley Act ( GLBA ), 15 U.S.C. 6801 et seq.\n\nNew Jersey Consumer Fraud Act ( N.J.S.A. 56:8-1 et seq. ) New Jersey Fair Credit Reporting Act ( N.J.S.A. 56:11-28 et seq. ) New Jersey Law Against Discrimination ( N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 et seq. ) Americans with Disabilities Act ( ADA ), 42 U.S.C. 12132 Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution due process and equal protection II. STATEMENT OF FACTS I am writing to formally lodge a dispute and seek immediate redress regarding a drastic and unreasonable XXXX decrease in my credit score by Equifax since XX/XX/XXXX. This reduction followed the opening of a new credit card account and a rise in credit utilization due to family medical emergency, yet occurred without any hard inquiry on my credit report making the action arbitrary, punitive, and without legitimate basis. \n\nAt all times, I have paid every credit card bill on time since the inception of each of my XXXX accounts. While my utilization ratio is currently high, this stems directly from my severe financial hardship caused by XXXX, as I live on a fixed SSDI income of only {$16000.00} per year. Additionally, I incurred necessary debt while staying in California for nearly XXXX months at my grandmothers bedside during her stay in the ICU from XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX, where I served as her caretaker until she passed away on XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nIt is unjust and discriminatory to penalize a XXXX individual living below 150 % of the poverty level for not having the financial means to qualify for higher credit limits due to inability to work due to XXXX which would allow lower utilization rates. Such a practice effectively punishes poor and XXXX consumers for circumstances beyond their control and perpetuates systemic bias in access to credit. \n\nFurthermore, the {$73.00} XXXX collection account listed on my credit report is erroneous and should never have been sent to collections, as I was never notified of any balance due nor given an opportunity to dispute or pay before collection action was taken.\n\nAs a direct consequence of Equifaxs actions, I am now unable to secure housing despite fleeing domestic XXXX and related criminal conduct, have been denied new credit cards and a debt consolidation loan, and have lost access to lower insurance premiums. This has left me a XXXX person with sixteen documented XXXX and a fixed income at risk of homelessness and unable to maintain safe or stable living conditions. \n\nI believe that this drastic reduction and its cascading effects violate my rights under the Consumer Fraud Act, Consumer Protection Laws, Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), Equal Credit Opportunity Act ( ECOA ), and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), as well as federal anti-discrimination statutes. These actions are exploitative, biased, unlawful, and fundamentally incompatible with the principles of fairness and equal access to financial services guaranteed by state and federal law.\n\nIII. LEGAL ANALYSIS AND VIOLATIONS 1. Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ), 1681i The FCRA mandates that consumer reporting agencies follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy. Equifaxs decision to reduce my score by XXXX points without a valid adverse event violates the accuracy, fairness, and reasonableness standards of the Act.\n\nFurther, 1681i ( a ) requires a reinvestigation of disputed information. Equifaxs failure to explain the scoring basis or review the disputed XXXX entry constitutes non-compliance. \n\nThis unreasonable scoring practice, untethered to my actual risk profile, meets the standard of negligence or willful noncompliance under FCRA 616-617, as interpreted in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ). \n\nXXXX. Equal Credit Opportunity Act ( ECOA ), 15 U.S.C. 1691 et seq. ; 12 C.F.R. 1002.6 ( b ) ( 2 ) ECOA prohibits discrimination in any aspect of a credit transaction, including through policies that cause disparate impact on protected groups. Penalizing a XXXX, low-income SSDI recipient with a XXXX drop for lawful credit activity disproportionately affects vulnerable consumers and thus constitutes a disparate impact violation under Texas XXXX of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. \n\nThe algorithm appears to punish consumers who can not raise credit limits due to XXXX or fixed incomea structurally biased outcome inconsistent with XXXX and the principles of fair lending and equal opportunity enforced by the CFPB and DOJ. \n3. Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), 15 U.S.C. 1692e ( 2 ) ( A ), 1692e ( 8 ) The unverified XXXX collection entry reflects false and misleading credit reporting. Reporting such a debt without verification constitutes deceptive representation under 1692e. The FTCs Staff Commentary on the FDCPA clarifies that the transmission of inaccurate collection data to a credit bureau qualifies as a misleading act under the statute. \n4. New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act ( N.J.S.A. 56:8-2 ) The CFA prohibits unconscionable commercial practices, deception, fraud, false pretense, and misrepresentation. Equifaxs unexplained, automated penaltyimposing severe financial damage absent any legitimate causeconstitutes an unconscionable and deceptive act under New Jersey law. The practice misleads lenders into perceiving heightened risk, damaging the consumers creditworthiness without factual justification. \n\nXXXX. New Jersey Law Against Discrimination ( NJLAD, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 et seq. ) The NJLAD extends to public accommodations and financial services. Penalizing a disabled consumer for lawful financial actions, due to their inability to increase credit capacity, reflects a discriminatory effect that violates N.J.A.C. 13:13-3.2 ( a ) ( 4 ), which prohibits discriminatory treatment in credit evaluation and financial access.\n\n6. Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act ( GLBA ), 15 U.S.C. 6801 ( b ) If Equifax accessed utilization data through soft inquiries or non-disclosed data sources, such access violates GLBA data privacy and confidentiality obligations. Using private financial data algorithmically to impose penalties without notice, consent, or transparency contravenes both GLBA 501 ( b ) and FTC Safeguards Rule, 16 C.F.R. Part 314.\n\n7. Due Process and Equal Protection Credit bureaus exercise quasi-regulatory authority over consumers financial reputations. Under XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) and XXXX v. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), any deprivation of property or reputation interests by an entity operating under public authorization requires procedural fairness. \n\nThe arbitrary XXXX decrease, executed without notice, rationale, or opportunity to contest, violates fundamental principles of due process and fairness embodied in both the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution.\n\nIV. ALGORITHMIC BIAS AND SYSTEMIC DISCRIMINATION Equifaxs reliance on opaque, unregulated algorithmic scoring models presents a systemic risk of discriminatory outcomes. Such algorithms, operating without human review, frequently penalize consumers with limited credit histories, low incomes, or disabilitiesconditions protected under federal law. \n\nThe XXXX Advisory Opinion on Algorithmic Credit Scoring ( XXXX ) explicitly warns that automated systems can not shield credit entities from liability under XXXX or FCRA. When algorithmic models produce disparate outcomes, entities remain legally responsible for ensuring fairness and explainability. \n\nThis case demonstrates how a flawed algorithm likely produced a disparate and disproportionate result, treating lawful, responsible financial behavior as a high-risk event. This not only violates federal standards but erodes public trust in the integrity of the credit reporting system. \n\nV. CONSUMER HARM AND PUBLIC POLICY IMPLICATIONS The unwarranted XXXX reduction has caused tangible harm : Economic harm, by restricting access to affordable credit, loans, and housing. \nReputational harm, by misrepresenting my financial responsibility to lenders. \nPsychological harm, as a XXXX individual now viewed as financially untrustworthy without cause. \n\nPublic policy strongly disfavors punitive scoring behavior detached from actual financial risk. The Federal Reserves Credit Scoring Guidelines and the FTCs Policy Statement on Unfairness ( XXXX ) require that financial scoring practices be proportionate, transparent, and consistent with objective data. \n\nEquifaxs conduct not only fails this standardit undermines the equitable purpose of the FCRA and XXXX by making fair credit access impossible for XXXX and low-income Americans. \n\nVI. LEGAL PRECEDENTS SUPPORTING REMEDY XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) : Inaccurate credit reporting constitutes concrete harm. \nPintos v. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ) : CRAs must ensure accuracy and fairness in reporting. \nXXXX v. Equifax XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX : Establishes liability for misleading and harmful score reductions. \nXXXX v. XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) : Confirms transparency in consumer credit processes. \nXXXX v. Equifax XXXX. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) : Failure to contextualize consumer data is actionable under FCRA. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) : Disparate treatment in credit evaluation violates XXXX. \n\nXXXX. REQUESTED ACTIONS AND RELIEF I respectfully request that your offices : XXXX. Initiate a coordinated multi-agency investigation into Equifaxs credit scoring algorithms and reporting procedures for violations of federal and state law.\n\n2. Compel Equifax to provide a detailed disclosure explaining the precise data and factors used to justify this XXXX reduction. \nXXXX. XXXX the immediate restoration of my credit score to its XXXX XXXX level and remove the unverified XXXX collection from my record. \nXXXX. Recommend enforcement action or civil penalties to ensure compliance with FCRA, ECOA, and NJCFA standards. 5. Implement algorithmic oversight require\nments ensuring transparency and fairness in credit score calculations for disabled and low-income consumers.\n\n6. Refer this matter to the DOJ Civil Rights Division for investigation into systemic discriminatory scoring practices. \n\nEquifaxs unexplained and disproportionate XXXX credit score reduction is arbitrary, deceptive, discriminatory, and unlawful. It reflects a systemic failure of algorithmic accountability and violates both federal and state consumer protection and anti-discrimination statutes. \n\nThe law requires that credit reporting be accurate, fair, transparent, and nondiscriminatory. My case demonstrates the oppositea punitive and baseless algorithmic decision that punished lawful behavior, exacerbated my financial hardship, and violated my rights under FCRA, ECOA, FDCPA, NJLAD, and constitutional due process.\n\nI therefore request immediate corrective and enforcement action to restore fairness, transparency, and accountability within Equifaxs credit reporting practices. \nRespectfully submitted,","date_sent_to_company":"2025-10-26T10:08:40.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Other personal consumer report","zip_code":"08831","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"16828131","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-10-26T10:02:33.000Z","state":"NJ","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Information is incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["The practice misleads lenders into perceiving heightened risk, damaging the consumers creditworthiness <em>without</em> factual <em>justification</em>. \n\nXXXX. New Jersey Law Against Discrimination ( NJLAD, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 et seq. ) The NJLAD extends to public accommodations and financial services."]},"sort":[6.2711844,"16828131"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":39,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":39}]}},"product":{"doc_count":39,"product":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":15,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":13},{"key":"Other personal consumer report","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":"Credit card debt","doc_count":8}]}},{"key":"Checking or savings account","doc_count":6,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Checking account","doc_count":6}]}},{"key":"Credit card","doc_count":5,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","doc_count":5}]}},{"key":"Credit card or prepaid 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":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","doc_count":2,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Mobile or digital wallet","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}]}}]}},"issue":{"doc_count":39,"issue":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","doc_count":8,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Debt is not yours","doc_count":8}]}},{"key":"Improper use of your report","doc_count":6,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Reporting company used your report improperly","doc_count":6}]}},{"key":"Managing an account","doc_count":5,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Banking errors","doc_count":1},{"key":"Deposits and withdrawals","doc_count":1},{"key":"Problem accessing account","doc_count":1},{"key":"Problem making or receiving payments","doc_count":1},{"key":"Problem using a debit or ATM card","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Credit monitoring or identity theft protection services","doc_count":4,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Problem canceling credit monitoring or identify theft protection service","doc_count":4}]}},{"key":"Incorrect information on your report","doc_count":3,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Information is incorrect","doc_count":2},{"key":"Account information incorrect","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Other features, terms, or problems","doc_count":3,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Other problem","doc_count":3}]}},{"key":"Getting a credit card","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Application denied","doc_count":1},{"key":"Delay in processing application","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Managing, opening, or closing your mobile wallet account","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","doc_count":2,"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 personal statement of dispute","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Closing your account","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Company closed your account","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Opening an account","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Unable to open an account","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"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":"Card was charged for something you did not purchase with the card","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"timely":{"doc_count":39,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":38},{"key":"No","doc_count":1}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":39,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":29},{"key":"Closed with non-monetary relief","doc_count":9},{"key":"Closed with monetary relief","doc_count":1}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":39,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":39}]}},"company":{"doc_count":39,"company":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","doc_count":7},{"key":"AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY","doc_count":4},{"key":"CITIBANK, N.A.","doc_count":3},{"key":"EQUIFAX, INC.","doc_count":3},{"key":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","doc_count":3},{"key":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":2},{"key":"NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","doc_count":2},{"key":"RAS LaVrar, LLC","doc_count":2},{"key":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"Block, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Branch Messenger, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"CLGF Holdco 1, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"Crown Asset Management, LLC, Duluth, GA Branch","doc_count":1},{"key":"Hayt Hayt & Landau, P.L. (FL)","doc_count":1},{"key":"InvestiNet LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Netspend Corporation","doc_count":1},{"key":"PATRICK A. CAREY, P.A.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Paypal Holdings, Inc","doc_count":1},{"key":"Pollack & Rosen, P.A.","doc_count":1},{"key":"SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL","doc_count":1}]}},"state":{"doc_count":39,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"FL","doc_count":19},{"key":"LA","doc_count":4},{"key":"NJ","doc_count":3},{"key":"CA","doc_count":2},{"key":"NC","doc_count":2},{"key":"OK","doc_count":2},{"key":"IL","doc_count":1},{"key":"MA","doc_count":1},{"key":"MD","doc_count":1},{"key":"MS","doc_count":1},{"key":"NE","doc_count":1},{"key":"NY","doc_count":1},{"key":"TX","doc_count":1}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":39,"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":17},{"key":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","doc_count":3}]}},"tags":{"doc_count":39,"tags":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Older American","doc_count":11},{"key":"Servicemember","doc_count":3},{"key":"Older American, Servicemember","doc_count":1}]}}},"_meta":{"license":"CC0","last_updated":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","last_indexed":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","total_record_count":16441818,"is_data_stale":false,"has_data_issue":false,"break_points":{"2":[6.2697678,"16828131"]}}}