{"took":194,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":16,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"2887060","_score":19.7456,"_source":{"product":"Credit card or prepaid card","complaint_what_happened":"I purchased merchandise which ended up being not as described at time of purchase. By the time I realized the merchant had explicitly misrepresented their product it was too late to return said product. The particular misrepresentation makes it impossible for me to sell said merchandise. \n\nI gave an accurate description of the sellers misrepresentation/fraud to discover, and provided evidence. However, Discover failed to protect me from the merchant 's fraud/misrepresentation. \n\nI purchased a phone from XXXX which I was explicitly told by a XXXX representative was factory unlocked. This was a blatant like on part of XXXX. The phone is riddled with spyware implanted by XXXX which I can not disable. There are major security flaws I can not remedy due to XXXX 's fraud, deceit, and blatant misrepresentation. \n\nXXXX provided no evidence to refute my claims. The evidence they provided simply shows I received the phone, which was never an issue in the first place. I've never claimed I did not order, or did receive, the phone. Discover ignored this entirely and adjudicated my dispute erroneously.","date_sent_to_company":"2018-04-25T17:23:39.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"98034","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"2887060","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"DISCOVER BANK","date_received":"2018-04-25T16:12:52.000Z","state":"WA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["There are major <em>security</em> <em>flaws</em> I can not <em>remedy</em> due to <em>XXXX</em> 's <em>fraud</em>, deceit, and blatant misrepresentation. \n\n<em>XXXX</em> provided no evidence to refute my claims. The evidence they provided simply shows I received the phone, which was never an issue in the first place. I've never claimed I did not order, or did receive, the phone. Discover ignored this entirely and adjudicated my dispute erroneously."]},"sort":[19.7456,"2887060"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"4424961","_score":14.22522,"_source":{"product":"Credit card or prepaid card","complaint_what_happened":"***Mailing full complete credit card statements including full account number, name and address and details of the account over a year after the account was closed. Security breach opens client and bank up to fraud. *** I have been in the finance industry for 30 years. Starting out with XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX on the teller line and continue my career into the mortgage sector in the XXXX. I've been through the XXXX crash and I know how easily fraud can occur. I even wrote a book about the mortgage loan process. I also hold my broker 's license in XXXX and XXXX. My husband works for a merchant processor in security, for credit card companies. He runs their Technologies division. We are both horribly alarmed at the policies of Union Bank. \n\nThey had closed our account a year ago which is fine. I understand they were probably concerned about covid-19 as it was just breaking out around this time. Knowing the account was closed was fine, XX/XX/20. Over a year later, XXXX, I get a bank statement with its complete account number, all of our information including address and name. I called Union bank just to be informed that they will mail out bank statements just like this anytime they have a policy change. Yes they will mail these out on closed accounts. Yes they will continue to mail it to the last address on record for up to seven years. This policy is flawed and needs to be corrected. I have never in my career ever seen this happen.\n\nAgain I am a professional of 30 years in the finance industry and very alarmed at the behavior and policy of Union Bank. If this policy has been implemented in recent years I would strongly discourage it and ask for reconsideration for Consumer Protection.\n\nWe have a situation now also because a lot of folks have passed away during the pandemic. Mailing out bank statements on accounts of the deceased, even if the account is officially closed, is opening up for liability, fraud, and exposure. I would think Union Bank would have a lot more sense in this. They are huge and they should be more aware of what kind of problems this could create and more than likely already has. \n\nIn doing my homework, I looked at XXXX reviews to find one star and several complaints of accounts being closed and consumers subjected to fraud already. Numerous complaints of identity theft. This is how it can happen. Thank you for taking care of this matter and having Union Bank change its policy. Furthermore remedying any other policy like it that other banks are using. This is dangerous to the consumer and to the bank because people could fraudulently be opening accounts with this information. \nThank you. XXXX XXXX XXXX, author of \" XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX '', XXXX # XXXX, WA # XXXX, Firm # XXXX, NMLS # XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2021-06-02T20:15:30.000Z","issue":"Other features, terms, or problems","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"92692","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"4424961","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"MUFG AMERICAS HOLDINGS CORPORATION","date_received":"2021-06-02T19:32:00.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Privacy issues"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>Security</em> breach opens client and bank up to <em>fraud</em>. *** I have been in the finance industry for 30 years. Starting out with <em>XXXX</em> XXXXXXXX <em>XXXX</em> on the teller line and continue my career into the mortgage sector in the <em>XXXX</em>. I've been through the <em>XXXX</em> crash and I know how easily <em>fraud</em> can occur. I even wrote a book about the mortgage loan process. I also hold my broker 's license in <em>XXXX</em> and <em>XXXX</em>. My husband works for a merchant processor in <em>security</em>, for credit card companies."]},"sort":[14.22522,"4424961"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3397267","_score":10.78949,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX XXXX of the property since XXXX. Front porch or stairs pulling away from your home Bowed Walls upper level. Home address XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX Florida. Damaged roofing and blocked guttering. ceilings exposed to water damage and flooding.Cracking. ... Cracked roof tiles or damaged 'pointing ' ( the cement sealant along the roof joins. roof and ceilings exposed to water damage and flooding. ..caused the damage.gaps where the walls and floors meet. Uneven or bouncy floors. Nail pops, In addition, Breach of a duty or obligation imposed at law Damages Code of Regulations The Florida Law REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY CHAPTER 701. ASSIGNMENT AND CANCELLATION OF MORTGAGES. 701.01 Assignment. 701.02 Assignment not effectual against creditors unless recorded .Structural defects in a building, Defective work the workmanship, builder for poor quality of work and/or in the materials used wood when concrete was suppose to used or systems used on a project that results in a failure of a component part of a building or structure and caused to whole house to be damaged damage to property. Also I am owed a refund. Legally, one party 's failure to fulfill any of its contractual obligations is known as a \" breach '' of the contract. Depending on the specifics, a breach can occur when a party fails to perform on time, does not perform in accordance with the terms of the agreement, or does not perform at all. Contract cancelled, notes and instruments. That I never signed. Never authorized forged documents. Satisfactory filed to cancel these forged documents. 701.04 Cancellation of mortgages, liens, and judgments. Restitution I am owed as a result of the following faulty construction Landscaping and soil ; Faulty drainage ; Foundation, floor, :CANCELLATION OF MORTGAGES 701.041 A unjustifiable failure by one party to perform his terms of a ... failure, without legal excuse, to perform any promise that forms all or part of the contract.actual contract breach also occurs if a party performs his or her obligations but fails to comply with the contract 's terms. This kind of breach occurs when the guilty party breaches the contract 's essential conditions. Never had a contract with XXXX XX/XX/XXXX to transfer to A servicer. Your have filed this document on my credit file. If this false information physical condition that reduces the value of a structure or endangers the health or safety of its occupants, that is a result of a flaw in design, materials, or workmanship, and that is not the result of normal aging or wear and tear.responsibility will lay with the general contractors, developers, and the builders of residential structures even if the work was performed by subcontractors or if the defective materials used in construction continues. contract, a formal and agreed promise ... frame, does not meet the terms of the agreement, or damages against the builder in contract fails perform at all.party fails to fulfill his legal Their legal obligations. This includes failure to perform in a manner that did not build my home as agreed and Much damage has occurred as a unlicensed activity according to the blue print is Breach of Contract breach of contract is when the terms of an agreement between parties are broken by one parties., breach of contract demand letter identifies an individual or party that has failed to perform as specified under a previously agreed upon contract.AFFIDAVIT A specific performance breach of contract. The construction of the Home. \nPlaintiff complaint filed by XXXX XXXX the Court received testimony and evidence and heard argument. Plaintiff XXXX XXXX At the conclusion of the trial, the Court announced that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Incorporated, as listed was liable to. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX individually for failing to construct the home in accordance with the contract and the applicable building codes. Conduct among other things, fraudulent documents were generated scheme detailed in this claim. In doing so the bank misrepresented and over stated the value of the property and understated the loan value ratio in the loan documents. This constitutes fraud in the inducement as a pattern of racketeering activity. Corrupt organization arising of a mortgage being conducted malfeasants in violation 18 U.S.C. FS 1962. Remedy rule relating to must respond with an answer. After receiving the complaint. I did not consent to be named as a party on my behalf estates imposed Other Documents. Negligently unprivileged publication to a third party ; there is a breach of contract and in publishing the communication. Failure to perform obligations, illegal, and failure protect confidential information confidentiality is important caused by another person can sue for emotional distress ... fault amounting to at least negligence ; and 4 ) damages, experienced significant anxiety or distress. A heavy burden upon concerning a controversy commissioning have been named by another Where servicer violations fraud error in  mortgage loan or a modification scheme Complaints : Solutions from revolves around a purposeful misrepresentation of fact loan stacking mortgage fraud as any \" misstatement, misrepresentation, or omission in relation to a mortgage loan which is then relied upon by a lender. '' Mortgage fraud. Dispute the errors with the credit bureaus. ... Including but not limited to Stolen Identity arising out of use of the Internet. A Stolen Identity include the theft or unauthorized or illegal use of business name, d/b/a method of identifying business activity. Further, notifying major credit bureaus, the Federal Trade Commission mortgage fraud includes fraud by false representation evidence of false documentation and fraud by failing to disclose information. The mortgage fraud victims fraud prohibited the state is a defense requires at least a copy of the contract you signed with the original company to enforcement of the contract.XX/XX/XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX Actions Based phishing counterfeit documents, Split The created forged Actions Based on Breach of Contract promissory notes and scheme copy of the forged note breached contract has exposed my personal financial information. victim of data breach, mortgage fraud still happens. Mortgage loan account has been breached the misrepresentation ( s ), misstatement ( s ) and/or omission ( s ) of material fact that were made ; XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX XXXX address is XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, VA XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXXe XXXX XXXX, whose address is XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, FL XXXX to and in favor of XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX following described property situated in of Florida upon the XXXX XXXX, XXXX Florida such Mortgage having been given to secure payment of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Dollars and XXXX ( {$120000.00} ( Include the Original Principal Amount ) which Mortgage is of record in Book , County, State of Florida. Created forged Instruments and together with the note ( s ) under such Mortgage an obligation therein described and the money due and to become due thereon in favor of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX \nMIN : XXXX -3 MERS Phone XXXX MERS Multistate   Assignment of Mortgage XXXX ; XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX 2M3 Page 1 of 2 VMP MORTGAGE FORMS - ( XXXX ) XXXX Mortgage fraud Create a Fraud File Unauthorized illegal use of my business name, Credit information fraudsters illegally faked an Identity Theft, Mortgage fraud, identity theft, the mortgage account number, mortgage fraud reported data breach, mortgage fraud, this victim of data breach information may have ... working with third-party. contract, which termination could result in Related Third Party. Any sort of \" material misstatement,  misrepresentation, or omission relating to the property. Misstatement, Misrepresentation deliberate misrepresentation and deception : deceptive practices including predatory ... Various deceptive and fraudulent practices by mortgage lenders, ... by misrepresenting information, XXXX contends he is not personally liable for any damages XXXX XXXX engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices, or any other type Court has disposed of that motion by Any person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation of section XXXX of this chapter may sue therefor in any appropriate United States district court and shall recover threefold the damages he sustains and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorneys fee, except that no person may rely upon any conduct that would have been  actionable as fraud in the purchase or ... 18 U.S.C. XXXX - U.S. Code - Unannotated Title 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure XXXX separate order. \nof fraudulent behavior. ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff XXXX XXXX shall recover from Defendant XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, the principal sum of {$5500.00}, court costs of {$300.00}, and arbitration costs of {$900.00}, for all of which let execution issue instanter and forthwith. This judgment shall accrue interest at the legal rate of eleven percent ( 11 % ) per annum. DONE AND ORDERED at XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, Florida, this XXXX day of XX/XX/XXXX. \nsuffered by Plaintiff. He argues that any liability lies with the corporation. Plaintiff argues that XXXX XXXX is individually liable because he personally performed some of the work on the house. As a general principal, a corporate officer or employee may be not held personally liable for acts of the corporation, absent evidence of wrongdoing, such as fraud. lenders which contained false statements. The sums obtained by the appellants ... I Placed a fraud alert and freeze on credit report File a police report. The first thing you should do is file a police report with local police department. Identity theft, property title theft identity theft until a mortgage originator pulls credit score in preparation for a home loan, Loan Fraud mortgage fraud identity theft, the victims are unaware scams A Stolen Identity Event is the theft or your personal identification, social security number, or other method of identifying result in the wrongful use of such information, Stolen Identity use this information unauthorized transactions on my Credit card fraud is the unauthorized use of a credit Request that the fraudulent accounts be removed from my credit file.. fraudulent charges Satisfaction of Mortgage required to release the lien and obtain the title. Use the Satisfaction of Mortgage document property through a private loan agreement that is now paid in full. The mortgage lien release, a document also known as the 'satisfaction of mortgage ', is a document that is acquired from, and to recover damages from signed by a mortgage lender. This document is an acknowledgement, that states, that the XXXX previous ) borrower has completed a payment agreement and therefore the mortgage is recognized by all. Advise the lender that I have yet to receive its \" release of lien '' document. Note you have written proof of payoff of the mortgage, including your mortgage loan note marked \" Paid. '' The mortgage lien release, if the other party hadnt breached the contract. A document the satisfaction of mortgage, is a document that is acquired from, and signed by a mortgage lender. This document is an acknowledgement, that states, that the ( previous ) borrower has completed a payment agreement and therefore the mortgage is recognized by all parties as paid in full. Once the satisfaction document has been filed and updated with the land registry or county registry, a clear title shall be returned to the land owner A Satisfaction of Mortgage, also known as a Mortgage Lien Release, the mortgagee ( financial institution ) advising that the mortgage has been paid in full, all terms of the loan have been satisfied and there will no longer be a lien on the property. This means the borrower has completely repaid their loan to the lender as agreed upon ( inclusive of late fees or other required payments by the lender ). Legal remedies for breach of contract. For example, a person may be entitled to monetary compensation if the other party fails to live up to the terms of the contract. The Payee Name false representation of a start to consider the possible remedies The Owner ( s ) never signed by the property Owner never signed Loan obligation under the agreement. \nXXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX of Virginia said to be the mortgage holder of Loan Total amount of mortgage Mortgage date of execution Full and legal description of the property to include tax parcel number Acknowledgement that all payments have been made in full Acknowledgement releasing the lender from filing a lien against the property. fails to do something they agreed to do, for any type of personal loan within three days of making the contract. Remedies can be awarded. Indeed, under Florida law, Date signed and signature of all appropriate parties. Breach of Contract, contracts may be cancelled within a three-day period. ... Federal law says you can cancel a contract. Recorded with the local County Recorders Office or Land Registry. Once the Satisfaction of Mortgage is filed the lien is lifted. parties involved in a contract failed to follow or do their duties and responsibilities that are related to the contract. Breach of Contract : Remedies The remedies for breach of contract include the following : money damages, restitution, rescission, reformation, and specific performance. position he or she would have been in if the other party hadnt breached the contract. A money damage award includes a sum of money that is given as compensation for financial losses caused by a breach of contract. XXXX XXXX contracted with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, for the ( c ) Any person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation of section XXXX of this chapter may sue therefor in any appropriate United States district court and shall recover threefold the damages he sustains and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorneys fee, except that no person may rely upon any conduct that would have been actionable as fraud in the purchase or sale of securities to establish a violation of section XXXX. The exception contained in the preceding sentence does not apply to an action against any person that is criminally convicted in connection with the fraud, in which case the statute of limitations shall start to run on the date on which the conviction becomes final. \nconstruction of a house. Defendant XXXX XXXX was the president of the corporation and signed the contract on behalf of the corporation. XXXX personally, performed some of the construction work himself. Since completion of Plaintiff 's house, the corporation has been dissolved. Plaintiff has sued the corporation and XXXX XXXX individually for failing to construct the home in breach of contract occurs, then the injured party may be offered a remedy in the form of legal remedies, or money damages, equitable remedies, or restitution by the Florida courts. ... They may include a specific performance requirement, performance breach of contract. accordance with the contract and the applicable building codes. ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff XXXX XXXX shall recover from Defendant XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, the principal sum of {$5500.00}, court costs of {$300.00}, and arbitration costs of {$900.00}, for all of which let execution issue instanter and forthwith. This judgment shall accrue interest at the legal rate of eleven percent ( 11 % ) per annual. DONE AND ORDERED at XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, Florida, this XXXX day of XX/XX/XXXX. Instrument # XXXX # XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX XXXX to repair our credit.. There is about {$200000.00} worth of damage to the home. I am due a refund and the home was built by unlicensed contractors. The structural damage i am entitled to refund. Contract is also broken to transfer to a third party.","date_sent_to_company":"2019-10-07T21:20:53.000Z","issue":"Closing on a mortgage","sub_product":"Other type of mortgage","zip_code":"32114","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3397267","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.","date_received":"2019-10-06T20:11:35.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> contracted with <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em>, for the ( c ) Any person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation of section <em>XXXX</em> of this chapter may sue therefor in any appropriate United States district court and shall recover threefold the damages he sustains and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorneys fee, except that no person may rely upon any conduct that would have been actionable as <em>fraud</em> in the purchase or sale of <em>securities</em> to establish a violation"]},"sort":[10.78949,"3397267"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8441189","_score":10.424163,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"While at my job. I was contacted at XXXX XX/XX/XXXX by XXXX, Caller ID recognized as Bank of America , a number I'm familiar with when fraudulent attempts made. The person informed me that there had been 2 suspicious transactions and a new bank account created in my name with my phone number. She informed me time was of the essence and that I needed to act swiftly before the funds would be withdrawn. She stated that they had traced the information leak through XXXX, the embedded secure service within the Bank of America App, and that I would be transferred to XXXX to verify who I am and processes to rectify the situation. XXXX XXXX # XXXX, a XXXX XXXX issued me a case # XXXX. His first instruction was to open my banking app to the XXXX payment function and add an billing agent Jatna Billings ( XXXX ) an send a code XXXX with memo VOID XXXX, confirmation # XXXX, to also screen shot the payment image to a office community number XXXX. The next protocol was to add billing agent XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) in the app and send code XXXX with memo XXXX, confirmation # XXXX, also to send screen shot of the payment image to that same XXXX. XXXX then informed me that the original code of XXXX to XXXX XXXX had expired/not submitted timely and that XXXX would now tackle this issue by sending code XXXX with memo XXXX, confirmation # XXXX, with again sending the screenshot to community number XXXX. At this point, XXXX thanked me for my vigilance, that I would be receiving a survey in my email about my experience, that I would be transferred to a Bank Security Officer to file a police report to finalize the incident. Officer XXXX XXXX went over and discussed with me the prior actions and codes that were issued to verify myself and remedy the situation, he then had me send a code XXXX to agent XXXX XXXX to finalize the incident, that I would be contacted within 24 hours to reassure any and all refunds were performed. I did receive those ( 2 ) calls at XXXX & XXXX the following day but was unable to answer. When home Wednesday evening, I had telephoned my mother who said that she was approached in the same manner, same suspicious transactions ( {$990.00} & {$1300.00} ) and a new bank account in her name with her phone number. She immediately hung up the phone after discussing my experience the day prior. This alerted me to check my account and no funds had been refunded. I contacted Bank of America Thursday morning where they verified that I had been scammed. Operator XXXX was great and issued me case # XXXX. I filed with XXXX XXXX Sheriff 's office with XXXX XXXX XXXX, # XXXX and he has issued me case # XXXX. Sadly through my research that this has been ongoing and an issue that BOA has been fully aware of ( since XXXX ) and still highly promotes the app as highly secure but with a clause that because I initiated the payments that my funds are unrecoverable. Fraud through XXXX apparently has been mounting tremendously that the issue has made it to Congress where BOA and the other banks that helped create it warned/instructed to do better. Through my research and conversations that even through my due diligence I was unknowingly a victim by very good imposters who spoofed BOA Fraud and XXXX phone numbers. They were familiar with the Banking protocols that I had experience previously. I was suspect a few times mainly about the codes that ended up being the transactions, the quality of the phone line and how they were a step ahead in the instruction of the app itself. I will give it to them as in total was about a 2 hour experience and that I cursed heavily numerous times with my frustrations in the performance of such ridiculous actions, again nothing that I haven't experienced growing pains with BOA. They were very understanding and comforting but have a feeling that they work or have worked for BOA/ XXXX it was that convincing. I had no knowledge of such scheme even though bank of America apparently has had knowledge of for sometime. I am disappointed I let my guard down. Being a Federal employee I am familiar with quite a few that I must be aware and help the public with, unfortunately I have become a victim. \n\nSince my original submission and amid Bank of America 's investigation I was alerted that my phone/contact number were removed. More recently I was alerted to an account review on the app solidifying that I hold my account secure. So, I never authorized any of this and seems like efforts to cover up or remedy flaws that are becoming aware. I was encouraged before today 's telephone call informing me the continuation of the denial of my claim because I made the transactions, but I was forced/coerced into these actions under the pretense I was interacting with Bank of America . BOA has lied where they don't call you but they do I have records and that's how I know the number so vividly when my cards were compromised. That's just basic what else are they lying about? I deal with the public and have fielded so many complaints especially after BOA bought up their mortgages and strong armed them instead of honoring the agreements they purchased. Again these scammers have knowledge how BOA operates as if it has inside intelligence, how is the consumer protected when throughout all security measures are easy to manipulate. This is something I feared and why I did not ever wish to make use of online banking but with FDIC, COVID and the horrendous USPS was basically forced to and now along with others fears have come to fruition under the protection of our government. Bank of America, XXXX and XXXX are all guilty in this crime.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-02-28T22:43:54.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Mobile or digital wallet","zip_code":"XXXXX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8441189","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2024-02-28T21:59:10.000Z","state":"MD","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>Fraud</em> through <em>XXXX</em> apparently has been mounting tremendously that the issue has made it to Congress where BOA and the other banks that helped create it warned/instructed to do better. Through my research and conversations that even through my due diligence I was unknowingly a victim by very good imposters who spoofed BOA <em>Fraud</em> and <em>XXXX</em> phone numbers. They were familiar with the Banking protocols that I had experience previously."],"issue":["<em>Fraud</em> or scam"]},"sort":[10.424163,"8441189"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3088431","_score":10.389748,"_source":{"product":"Credit card or prepaid card","complaint_what_happened":"This incredulous situation began in XX/XX/XXXX when I purchased several facial creams from an Oceane Kiosk on the ground floor of the XXXX XXXX in XXXX, Connecticut. The creams I purchased were several hundred dollars and I paid for these products using either my XXXX credit or my XXXX debit card accounts issued by Bank of America. The purchase price of the creams was recorded properly on my debit card receipts. In XX/XX/XXXX, I discovered fraudulent activity on my XXXX credit card purchases. Unbeknownst to me, multiple and unauthorized charges of facial treatments were added to the authorized charges for multiple facial creams that I voluntarily purchased. \nAn additional charge of {$1500.00} for facial treatments was added onto the transaction for a facial cream that I agreed to purchase for {$100.00} on XX/XX/XXXX. Another facial treatment charge of {$3700.00} was processed by Bank of America on the same date without my knowledge or authorization. Again, charges of {$7300.00} and two in excess of {$11000.00} were processed without my knowledge or authorization on XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX. \nThe credit limit for my XXXX account at the time of these fraudulent transactions was {$27000.00}. When I received and reviewed my credit card statement in XX/XX/XXXX, the total charges on my account were {$54000.00}, which is obviously two times my authorized credit account limit. I was never notified by XXXX that these numerous, unauthorized transactions by the XXXX XXXX were being attempted let alone actually processed! In XX/XX/XXXX, I was told by the Bank of America Fraud Division they would investigate my claims of fraudulent activity. I also reported the suspicious charges to the XXXX security office, The XXXX XXXX XXXX, the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protections Better Business Bureau and the XXXX, Connecticut police in XX/XX/XXXX. \nIn their defense, XXXX submitted a doctored credit card sales receipt in XX/XX/XXXX which list my facial creams as a zero balance, even though I paid for these with my XXXX debit card. There is a charge for {$3000.00} for facial treatments I did not purchase let alone receive, and my signature on this receipt is not mine. My actual signature bears no resemblance to the XXXX on the Oceane-provided receipt. \nYour banks Fraud Division reported back to me that the charges did not meet VISAs criteria for fraud in that : 1 ) my card was always in my possession ; and 2 ) I had allegedly signed for the purchase of the creams and treatments.\n\nThere are several flaws in Bank of Americas reasoning to reach its conclusions. First, my credit card was not in my possession for every fraudulent transaction. Second, my signature was forged. Third, I was not physically present in the XXXX XXXX mall on XX/XX/XXXX, to authorize the final transaction of {$11000.00}. Further, the XXXX credit card statement that I receive monthly contains a statement that customers will not be held responsible for fraudulent charges. I believe there has been an egregious error committed by Bank of America in its determination that these charges were not fraudulent and concluding that I am responsible for the entire {$35000.00} fraudulently incurred debt. Would someone at Bank of America please take a breath and ask herself whether a retired man with a stellar credit history spend {$35000.00} in a mall kiosk? \nOf course, the XXXX XXXX at the XXXX XXXX XXXX  has closed, and the former employees can not be located. Apparently, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX claims that each XXXX store or kiosk is an independent franchise, the parent company has denied any responsibility for these fraudulent transactions on my account. Further, XXXX XXXX and XXXX have denied any responsibility and are unresponsive to my dilemma. \nI am currently being charged several hundred dollars in finance charges every month, which I dispute and I am being told by your staff that I have no remedy. My current account balance exceeds the revised credit limit of {$21000.00} and I have been told by several lawyers that XXXX is entitled to collect interest on accounts even when they are under dispute. I have been charged in excess of {$5000.00} in XXXX in finances charges. \nI am formally requesting that you directly intervene with your banks Fraud and Disputed Claims Division and credit my account for the fraudulent {$35000.00} worth of unauthorized transactions and accrued interest charges from my account. My ability to obtain credit from other sources has been severely affected by this debacle. Otherwise, I demand that this dispute be escalated according to the terms of my cardholder agreement. \nI seek your kind attention to my problem and look forward to your reply. If you require further information from me, then please do not hesitate to contact me.","date_sent_to_company":"2018-11-30T19:19:05.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"064XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3088431","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2018-11-30T18:28:27.000Z","state":"CT","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["In XX/XX/<em>XXXX</em>, I was told by the Bank of America <em>Fraud</em> Division they would investigate my claims of fraudulent activity. I also reported the suspicious charges to the <em>XXXX</em> <em>security</em> office, The <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em>, the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protections Better Business Bureau and the <em>XXXX</em>, Connecticut police in XX/XX/<em>XXXX</em>."]},"sort":[10.389748,"3088431"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13301326","_score":8.610581,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"I am filing this complaint due to KeyBanks gross mishandling of multiple fraud disputes I initiated in XX/XX/XXXX related to unauthorized transactions that occurred during XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. Their repeated negligence, failure to communicate, and inconsistent decisions have not only left me financially devastated currently severely overdrafted but also at risk of account closure. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I filed dispute # XXXX via KeyBanks chat support. I provided a detailed list of fraudulent transactions totaling {$1100.00}. However, the agent, XXXX, miscalculated the amount at {$1100.00}. I immediately flagged the discrepancy, and she responded, We will double check why you only receive {$1100.00} and will update you tomorrow. No update was ever provided, and the error was never corrected. \n\nAs this was a fraud claim, my debit card was canceled and a replacement issued. Despite confirming my correct Oregon address ( zip code XXXX ) with the agent in chat, the replacement card was illegally sent to Florida, an address not on file. This resulted in serious delays and exposed significant flaws in KeyBank 's security and address verification protocols. When I visited a branch in person to follow up, I also discovered that dispute documents had supposedly been mailed, but they could not tell me where, which explains why I never received any information, status updates, or document requests. Clearly, this contributed to an improperly investigated claim. \n\nIn an attempt to resolve the situation, branch staff assisted me in filing a second dispute, # XXXX, on XX/XX/XXXX, to fix what was done incorrectly the first time. However, on XX/XX/XXXX, without warning, KeyBank reversed the provisional credits previously issued. I was not informed by phone, email, or physical mail. I only discovered this reversal on XX/XX/XXXX, and immediately followed up via chat on XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nIn that conversation, agent XXXX asked if I had received any mail regarding the denial. I reiterated that I had never received any mail at all, likely due to their prior mailing errors. I then requested that all denied transactions be reopened immediately, overdraft fees reversed, and a proper investigation conducted one in which I could finally participate and submit documentation.\n\nInstead of acknowledging KeyBanks failures, XXXX gave a condescending and irrelevant excuse, stating that my claim was denied because \" online banking was used between the times the transactions were made and were not reported at that time. '' This is both misleading and unacceptable. \n\nI want to make this clear : Using online banking is not evidence of awareness of fraud. Customers log in for various reasons to check a balance, pay a bill, or transfer funds and may not notice unfamiliar transactions without actively reviewing a statement.\n\nAll disputed transactions were reported together, and KeyBank admitted some were fraudulent yet denied others from the exact same time period without giving me a chance to address the reason or provide input. That inconsistency undermines any argument they have that the denials were justified. \n\nThese transactions occurred during the holiday season when I was recovering from XXXX  XXXX, grieving the death of a family member, and not able, as a XXXX person for whom XXXX and grief recovery is much harder than an able-bodied person, to be constantly actively monitoring my account. This is a reasonable and human explanation for any delay in reporting, especially since I filed the dispute immediately upon noticing the charges. \n\nI stressed to XXXX that just because a customer logs into online banking between fraudulent charges does not mean they are aware of the fraud. Simply checking a balance or using bill pay does not indicate the customer has seen all transactions, especially when dealing with medical recovery and emotional distress. Moreover, KeyBank themselves deemed some transactions fraudulent while denying others that occurred in the same window, reported at the same time. This is completely inconsistent and unjustified. \n\nXXXX then said they put in a request to reopen the claims and that I would be notified by mail again, despite my clear and repeated reports that KeyBank 's mailing system failed to reach me in the past. When I asked if I could email documentation instead, I was told no. When I asked what documentation might help, I was told \" anything you believe will help, a deliberately vague and unhelpful answer. This makes no sensehow is a customer supposed to provide helpful information when the bank offers no guidance on what would be relevant? Their process is opaque and set up to discourage successful dispute resolution. \nI am now left with a severely negative balance, facing potential account closure and lasting financial harm, entirely because of KeyBanks systemic failures : Mailing a debit card to an address in another state Failing to properly calculate my disputed amount Refusing to provide status updates or allow customer participation Reversing provisional credits without notice Refusing to reopen claims without arbitrary approval Denying claims based on irrational assumptions, like online activity implying awareness of fraud Why XXXX complaining : KeyBank failed to correctly calculate or investigate my initial dispute total. \n\nThey mailed my replacement debit card to the wrong state ( Florida ) despite confirming my Oregon address. \n\nThey mishandled communications and sent all dispute-related correspondence to who-knows-where - because I never received any - resulting in me never receiving vital information. In the year of XXXX they claim emails or online correspondence can not be utilized to communicate crucial dispute information, which I find to be another cop out on behalf of KeyBank to set clients up for failure for Key 's own gain. \n\nThey reversed provisional credit without any notice and without offering a fair opportunity for me to respond or submit evidence. \n\nThey approved some transactions as fraud and denied others from the same period, with no justification provided. \n\nThey denied my claim based on irrelevant reasoning ( online banking was accessed ) and without allowing me to address it. \n\nThey are now requiring me to \" request '' for a claim to be reopened, and refusing to allow that communication to occur via email despite their mailing issues. \n\nTheir agents provide no guidance or transparency, leaving me unable to reasonably respond or support my claim. Despite framing the re-opening of the disputes as a \" request '' that can be approved or denied, they provide no insight on the criteria for approval, what to submit to gain approval, or any other vital details to allow a client to have their claims re-addressed. \n\nI demand that KeyBank immediately reopen all previously denied transactions from this dispute, reverse all overdraft fees, and allow me a fair chance to submit evidence and fully participate in the investigation. \n\nIf this is not resolved promptly, I am fully prepared to explore additional legal remedies, including filing an arbitration demand or pursuing other avenues for relief.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-05-02T09:54:01.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"97206","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13301326","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"KEYCORP","date_received":"2025-05-02T08:59:51.000Z","state":"OR","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Problem using a debit or ATM card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Despite confirming my correct Oregon address ( zip code <em>XXXX</em> ) with the agent in chat, the replacement card was illegally sent to Florida, an address not on file. This resulted in serious delays and exposed significant <em>flaws</em> in KeyBank 's <em>security</em> and address verification protocols."]},"sort":[8.610581,"13301326"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7985008","_score":7.9927373,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"My Destiny credit card expired this year and I was not sent a replacement. I didnt recognize the issue until I moved to a new apartment and was updating the address for all my accounts. I called and found out the company had some issue with creating credit cards and it was the reason I was not automatically sent a new XXXX. I have never encountered such a reason for not sending a customer a new card and thought the amount of time that had passed was extended but did not mind I just wanted my replacement XXXX sent. \n\nI have several accounts with XXXX XXXX. I updated my address for all my accounts around the same time. What is different about the Destiny XXXX is the fact the card had expired months prior to my moving and I had not been sent an updated card. \n\nI requested the replacement card by calling support and verifying my identity. I thought nothing of the card to be sent until I got letters requesting I send copies of my drivers license for the card I requested. The card then just showed up. a couple of weeks ago my app access for this specific card was blocked. I was and am able to access my other accounts in that same app just fine though. \n\nThe request to mail or fax my drivers license was alarming to me given I had verified over the phone and the specialist did not mention I would need to submit more information to verify, they simply stated I would get the card. I saw no reason for the request given I had had the account for years, I truly thought the letters were fraudulent. Especially since the card showed up. \n\nOther recent calls to this customer service department included issues with the app. I attempted to inform customer service that my apartment number was not showing properly when updating the address. Living in an apt I didnt want to deal with the headache of having my XXXX delivered to the wrong mailbox. I persisted because I had requested the updated XXXX and the specialist told me that the address showing in the app is the address that would be used to ship my updated XXXX. After over an hr on the phone I was told that the reason my address did not show correctly in the app was a general app issue and that my address showed an XXXX XXXX in the companys systems. I believe I submitted feedback about the experience. I took them to task in that review given they wasted so much of my time. Had I not been confused and worried the call could have ended sooner. I mention it here because I feel it material to the events following this particular call. Keep in mind that call happened in XXXX. I verified my identity over the phone for the call. \n\nI just got off the phone closing my Destiny account because again what I was being told made no sense. \n\nI was told that my request for an updated card, never sent to me as it should have been, and updating my address back in XXXX may have caused my account to be placed on a system generated fraud block in XXXX. \n\nI was very frustrated at this point but spoke clearly I explained that the reasoning I was being provided for this block was unreasonable. I had had no suspicious charges on the card in all the years I held the account and I had multiple accounts with the company. \n\nThe supervisor I requested claimed to have read all the notes but did not know why for months my card was never sent. I pointed out that they had told me they had read all the notes already after they provided a quick answer of fax or mail a copy of my drivers license. After having me hold and to add to add to my frustration the supervisor stated my card was never sent because they were out of plastic. \n\nAt that point I got the impression that the supervisor simply saw me as a problem and nothing more. They didnt care about their role or mine for this company. I felt I and my frustrations were something of a joke to them and they were happy to close the account. I informed the supervisor that they were a liability to the company given they did not even put forth the effort to be informed about the situation or offer any remedy or recourse given the obvious unreasonable nature of the fraud block. \n\nI explained requesting a card never sent and updating an address are rather normal events, and I wanted to know why with no fraudulent charges in the years long history of the account my account was blocked but other than the previously mentioned reply the supervisor had no other response. \n\nThe ball was dropped on getting an updated card out to me. \n\nI remember calling about getting an updated card for this account twice. I am not sure why it took XXXX calls and the card didnt arrive until XXXX and once it arrived the account was blocked. Whats crazy is I activated this card when I called today. If it were on system generated fraud block why did the automated system allow me to activate the card? \n\nI cant explain why if my updating my address was a fraud triggering event this company acted upon it only after I sent in feedback about my customer service experience regarding their app? I had called them after updating the address in the app why not inform me of the issue then if it is system generated as the last supervisor stated? \n\nWhy was I made to authentic my identity over the phone if it is not good enough? If there is a question? What pattern of fraud is evident in these series of events to justify handling my account in this way? It is an industry standard to verify over the phone. I did not fail the phone authentication at any time I called them. I have reported no unauthorized charges and I have had the account for years. I am questioning whether or not this is a gross abuse of power by employees who have little to no oversight. Its as if when they dont like a customer or what they have to say no matter if they say it with decency just to spite the customer, in breach of their service contract, as detriment to the company they opt to just put a fraud block on the account, if they are doing things like that to people it is fraud. \n\nMy daughter has also been sent through this process forcing her to send copies of drivers licenses and social security cards I feel unreasonably she did not know why Discover suddenly requested the information. Her student credit card account with Discover was closed impacting her credit. \n\nI had an account with synchrony bank closed I feel due to the supervisor I was escalated to for their customer service. At the time customers were unable to remove old payment accounts from the app. A payment processed on an old account and I am not sure how I had used the same account over and over. I feel because the supervisor did not like my clear and direct communication and my pointing out flawed logic and my complaints about my poor experience, they found a reason and that account was closed against my wishes to spite me. ( I had a prepaid card XXXX card and was never notified of the cards ability to graduate to a regular credit I had called several times seeking clarity because I wanted the card to graduate and it seemed they were not sticking to what they told me when I got the card and I had just had another secured XXXX graduate to an actual XXXX. I was fed lines about the process being unavailable to the public, etc I found out later that they had never even pulled my credit ). \n\nI feel like my credit is being targeted and I dont even know why.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-12-11T19:24:34.000Z","issue":"Other features, terms, or problems","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"337XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7985008","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CLGF Holdco 1, LLC","date_received":"2023-12-02T20:50:57.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Problem with customer service"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I informed the supervisor that they were a liability to the company given they did not even put forth the effort to be informed about the situation or offer any <em>remedy</em> or recourse given the obvious unreasonable nature of the <em>fraud</em> block."]},"sort":[7.9927373,"7985008"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"5313410","_score":7.826913,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"This was my response to a Select Portfolio Servicing when they tried to force and threaten me to pay them to which nothing is owed to them. We have no contract with them. \nLETTER SENT TO SPS This document is a Living Testimony in the form of an AFFIDAVIT and is in response to a letter from SPS Select Portfolio Servicing Inc. dated XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nThe SPS letter is addressed to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. The SPS letter is attached and returned with this response. Line one of the SPS letter states : YOUR MORTGAGE HAS BEEN REFERRED FOR LEGAL ACTION. \nThe next line of SPS letter states SPS has referred your account for legal action, you may still be able to avoid foreclosure. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX a woman and XXXX XXXX XXXX a man live in and own unencumbered 5 XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ] I XXXX XXXX XXXX am an American woman with Inherited Sovereignty. I XXXX XXXX XXXX was born on American Soil. My husband is XXXX XXXX XXXX, an American man with inherited sovereignty. XXXX XXXX XXXX was born on American Soil. XXXX XXXX XXXX a woman and XXXX XXXX XXXX a man are not XXXX citizens. XXXX XXXX XXXX a woman and XXXX XXXX XXXX a man, identify as XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX. \n\nThe SPS letter is addressed to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX is a soulless legal fiction. XXXX XXXX is a soulless legal fiction. Soulless legal fictions can not contract. Any contract that may exist titled as addressed in this letter is not a woman or a man and therefore can not enter a contract. \n\nWe, XXXX XXXX XXXX a woman and XXXX XXXX XXXX a man, are not the legal fiction printed on the SPS letter. We XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX do not have a contract with SPS, nor do we consent. \n\nThat said XXXX XXXX XXXX a woman and XXXX XXXX XXXX a man will not ignore the letter from SPS. We XXXX XXXX XXXX a woman and XXXX XXXX XXXX a man, agree to pay any financial obligation which we lawfully owe on the condition that SPS provide the following : 1. Validation of the debt that is the actual accounting. \n2. Verification of the SPS claim against XXXX XXXX XXXX a woman and XXXX XXXX XXXX a man that is a signed invoice. \n3. A copy of the contract binding, both parties SPS and XXXX XXXX XXXX a woman and XXXX XXXX XXXX a man in a letter by registered mail that there is an independent witness to it having been delivered. \n4. Full disclosure. Proof that XXXX XXXX XXXX a woman and XXXX XXXX XXXX a man, were told that they would create the credit with our wet ink signature. \n5. Equal consideration. Proof that SPS brought something of value to the contracting table.\n\n6. Lawful terms and conditions. The terms and conditions should not be based upon fraud.\n\n7. The wet ink signatures of both parties. Corporations can not sign because they have no right or mind to contract since they are soul-less legal fictions ; and furthermore, no third party can sign a contract on their behalf. \n\nI XXXX XXXX XXXX and my husband XXXX XXXX XXXX do own land/property. As we XXXX XXXX XXXX a woman and XXXX XXXX XXXX a man discovered in XXXX all our property is unencumbered from lawful interest. As we XXXX XXXX XXXX a woman and XXXX XXXX XXXX a man and most everyone now know banks and financial institutions do not lend money. Banks are not able to loan their own or depositors money, under Federal Law. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX a woman and XXXX XXXX XXXX a man were led to believe that a Promissory Note we sign is a document that binds us to make repayment of money that the lender ; XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  was loaning us to refinance property we acquired. There was no disclosure as to the effect that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX was not loaning any of their money to XXXX XXXX XXXX a woman and my XXXX XXXX XXXX a man and therefore the Bank took no risk whatsoever in the transaction. It was not disclosed to XXXX XXXX XXXX a woman and XXXX XXXX XXXX a man that according to FEDERAL LAW, banks are not allowed to loan credit and are also not allowed to loan their own or their depositors money. \n\nIn the federal courts, it is well established that a national bank has no power to lend its credit to another by becoming surety, endorser or guarantor. \nXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX F XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ; A national bank has no power to lend its credit to any person or corporation. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX denied in XXXX XXXX Ct XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Banks steal money by letting their employees lie and pretend that the bank is lending money. \nIn XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX by their representatives lied and pretended to lend us, XXXX XXXX XXXX a woman and XXXX XXXX XXXX a man money. XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX did not lend XXXX XXXX XXXX a woman and XXXX XXXX XXXX a man money. \nInstead XXXX XXXX XXXX a woman and XXXX XXXX XXXX a man jointly by each of their signatures on a specified promissory note provided money/credit for their property. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX prepared a promissory note and a Deed of Trust for XXXX XXXX XXXX a woman and XXXX XXXX XXXX a man to sign. The promissory note was signed but was flawed thereby inapplicable for its purpose. The Deed of Trust was never signed. The unsigned Deed of Trust is in XXXX XXXX XXXX a woman and XXXX XXXX XXXX a man possession and control. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX a woman and XXXX XXXX XXXX a man discovered the fraud perpetrated by XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX years after. Suspected fraud in the undertaking was confirmed via a professional audit and a hired detective. We, XXXX XXXX XXXX a woman and my husband XXXX XXXX XXXX a man filed a lawsuit against many actor Banks and Financial institutions who participated in this extended fraud. The lawsuit named XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and SPS. \n\nAs a result of this lawsuit the judge issued a minute order following a Defendant demurrer which led to dismissal of the case. Per the court order a real party in interest for any liability caused by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Federal Department Insurance Corporation FDIC. FDIC is a receiver of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX and the party in interest for liabilities caused and created by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX \n\nBased upon this order of the court we, XXXX XXXX XXXX a woman and XXXX XXXX XXXX a man redirected our remedy and discovered another. This remedy is based upon public policy as outlined by TILA ( truth in lending act ). It is designed to punish banks who play outside of rules and ethics. This is most all banks. \nBased upon the Supreme Court ruling by XXXX XXXX : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX a woman and XXXX XXXX XXXX a man prepared a Notice of Right to Cancel original XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX fraudulent transaction. The cancellation was notarized and mailed to the FDIC with supporting case law. \n\nAccording to law the FDIC had twenty days from the time it was received by them to object to XXXX XXXX XXXX a woman and XXXX XXXX XXXX a man claims of cancellation. FDIC could do this by filing a lawsuit. No objection occurred. \n\nThis letter/notice is XXXX XXXX XXXX a woman and XXXX XXXX XXXX a man response to an SPS threat by inquiry that states money is owed to SPS. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX a woman and XXXX XXXX XXXX a man response to SPS is that NO financial obligation to SPS exists by us that is owed to SPS. We have no contract and we do not consent. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX, a woman and XXXX XXXX XXXX are the victims in the fraud to which SPS did partake. The initial fraud was perpetrated by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX a woman and XXXX XXXX XXXX a man signed an inadequate promissory note. XXXX XXXX XXXX a woman and XXXX XXXX XXXX a man are the only signatures that appear on the document. Under common law this was not and is not a contract. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX was printed on the front of the note as the lender. This was not true. XXXX XXXX XXXX a woman and XXXX XXXX XXXX a man, their signature on the note created the money/credit to fund the transaction. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX did not disclose this nor did the bank disclose that the Note would be immediately sold and securitized. \n\nFraud vitiates [ makes void ] any contract that arises from it. Fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents and even judgments [ XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ] In XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  claimed to be a servicer for a bankrupted XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX. This was not true. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX utilized a lie to pillage income and wealth from XXXX XXXX XXXX a woman and XXXX XXXX XXXX a man for 20 years. \nThe following Criminal Codes have been and are violations perpetrated by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, SPS and co-conspirators i.e., XXXX XXXX XXXX \n\nNotice of violation of 18 U.S. Code 1341 - Frauds and swindles Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, or to sell, dispose of, loan, exchange, alter, give away, distribute, supply, or furnish or procure for unlawful use any counterfeit or spurious coin, obligation, security, or other article, or anything represented to be or intimated or held out to be such counterfeit or spurious article, for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice or attempting so to do, places in any post office or authorized depository for mail matter, any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by the Postal Service, or deposits or causes to be deposited any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by any private or commercial interstate carrier, or takes or receives therefrom, any such matter or thing, or knowingly causes to be delivered by mail or such carrier according to the direction thereon, or at the place at which it is directed to be delivered by the person to whom it is addressed, any such matter or thing, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If the violation occurs in relation to, or involving any benefit authorized, transported, transmitted, transferred, disbursed, or paid in connection with, a presidentially declared major disaster or emergency ( as those terms are defined in section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act ( 42 U.S.C. 5122 ) ), or affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than {>= $1,000,000} or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both. \n\nNotice of violation of 18 U.S. Code 1349 - Attempt and conspiracy ( two or more involved ) Any person who attempts or conspires to commit any offense under this chapter shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the attempt or conspiracy Notice of violation of 18 U.S. Code 876 ( d ) Mailing threatening communications Whoever, with intent to extort from any person any money or other thing of value, knowingly so deposits or causes to be delivered, as aforesaid, any communication, with or without a name or designating mark subscribed thereto, addressed to any other person and containing any threat to injure the property or reputation of the addressee or of another, or the reputation of a deceased person, or any threat to accuse the addressee or any other person of a crime, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. If such a communication is addressed to a United States judge, a Federal law enforcement officer, or an official who is covered by section 1114, the individual shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both. \nHas any of the Fraud activity by SPS and XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX crossed state lines in communications or other activities? Have there been at least two predicate acts of Fraud by the parties involved? Have the people involved used any type of electronic communication in this Fraud such as telephone, faxing or email? It is obvious that those questions will be answered with a resounding YES! If that is the case, then the Fraud that has been discussed here falls under the XXXX statutes of Federal Law. Didnt they eventually take down the mob for XXXX under XXXX statutes years ago? Is it time to take down the NEW MOB with XXXX once again? \nBy : XXXX XXXX XXXX ' All Rights Reserved, Without Prejudice I am an American, with Inherited Sovereignty. I was born on American Soil.","date_sent_to_company":"2022-03-12T23:19:16.000Z","issue":"Struggling to pay mortgage","sub_product":"Conventional home mortgage","zip_code":"92602","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"5313410","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.","date_received":"2022-03-12T21:35:13.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> XXXXXXXX prepared a promissory note and a Deed of Trust for <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> a woman and <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> a man to sign. The promissory note was signed but was <em>flawed</em> thereby inapplicable for its purpose. The Deed of Trust was never signed. The unsigned Deed of Trust is in <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> a woman and <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> a man possession and control. \n\n<em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> a woman and <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> a man discovered the <em>fraud</em> perpetrated by <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em>  <em>XXXX</em> years after."]},"sort":[7.826913,"5313410"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13826241","_score":7.745796,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"XX/XX/scrub>XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Equifax Corporation XXXX XXXX XXXX Office Of The General Counsel XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX RE : FORMAL DISPUTE OF INACCURATE, UNVERIFIABLE, AND INCOMPLETE INFORMATIONDEMAND FOR IMMEDIATE DELETION AND STATUTORY DAMAGES I. NOTICE OF VIOLATIONS AND LEGAL DEMAND This letter serves as formal notice that your credit reporting file contains multiple violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq., and related federal consumer protection statutes. I hereby DISPUTE and DEMAND the immediate and permanent deletion of all inaccurate, incomplete, unverifiable, and outdated information identified herein II. STATUTORY AUTHORITY AND CONSUMER RIGHTS Under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ), you are required to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation of disputed information within thirty ( 30 ) days. Per FCRA 623 ( b ), furnishers must investigate and respond to disputes. Failure to comply subjects you to statutory damages of $ XXXX {$1000.00} per violation under FCRA 616, plus actual damages, punitive damages, and attorneys fees under FCRA 617.\n\nIII. SPECIFIC DISPUTES AND VIOLATIONS ACCOUNT XXXX : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Account Status : CLOSEDViolations : FCRA 605 ( a ) ( 4 ) - Reporting period violation : Account shows 4 years 2 months age while closed, potentially exceeding 7-year limit FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 2 ) - Incomplete furnishing : Missing date of first delinquency verification Demand : IMMEDIATE DELETION - Account is closed and potentially time-barred ACCOUNT 2 : XXXX XXXX XXXX Account Number : XXXX XXXX ( INCOMPLETE ) Violations : FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) - Incomplete account identification Metro 2 Compliance Failure - Partial account number violates furnishing standards FCRA 607 ( b ) - Incomplete consumer reporting information Demand : IMMEDIATE DELETION - Unverifiable due to incomplete data ACCOUNT XXXX : XXXX XXXX XXXX \nAccount Status : CLOSEDLast Payment : N/A ( INCOMPLETE REPORTING ) Violations : FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 2 ) - Incomplete payment history reporting Metro 2 Non-Compliance - Missing required payment amount data FCRA 605 ( a ) - Closed account retention beyond usefulness Demand : IMMEDIATE DELETION - Incomplete and unverifiable ACCOUNT 4 XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Violations : FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) - Incomplete account information visible FCRA 607 ( a ) - Insufficient identifying information Demand : COMPLETE VERIFICATION OR DELETION IV. CREDIT FILE STATUS VIOLATIONS Current Status : FRAUD_VICTIM_INITIAL_ALERT_V FILE_BLOCKED_FOR_PROMOTIONAL_PURPOSES SECURITY_FREEZE Violations : FCRA 605A - Improper fraud alert maintenance and notation FCRA 604 - File access restrictions improperly coded Demand : Correct file status coding immediately V. LEGAL DEMANDS AND REQUIREMENTS IMMEDIATE ACTIONS REQUIRED : 1. PERMANENT DELETION of all closed accounts identified above 2. COMPLETE VERIFICATION or deletion of incomplete account information 3. METHOD OF VERIFICATION ( MOV ) documentation for any accounts you claim to verify 4. WRITTEN CONFIRMATION of all deletions sent to my address above 5. UPDATED CREDIT REPORT reflecting all deletions within 5 business days VERIFICATION STANDARDS DEMANDED : Per FCRA 623 ( b ) ( 1 ), any reinvestigation must include : Original signed credit application or agreement Complete payment history from account inception Chain of title documentation for assigned accounts Verification of reporting period compliance Complete account numbers and identification data VI. NOTICE OF STATUTORY DAMAGES AND RECENT ENFORCEMENT RECENT CFPB ENFORCEMENT : Be advised that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau recently ordered Equifax to pay a {$15.00} XXXX civil penalty for failing to properly investigate and resolve consumer disputes about inaccurate information on credit reports. CFPB Director XXXX XXXX stated : Equifax failed in its basic duty to investigate and resolve consumer disputes about inaccurate information on their credit reports. \nFCRA 616 - Willful Non-Compliance : $ XXXX {$1000.00} per violationFCRA 617 - Negligent Non-Compliance : Actual damages plus attorneys fees Your company processes approximately XXXX disputes each month and has demonstrated a pattern of inadequate investigations and flawed software systems that led to inaccurate consumer credit scores. This establishes a pattern of willful non-compliance that supports maximum statutory damages. \nIdentified Violations Subject to Damages : Incomplete account reporting : XXXX accounts = $ XXXX {$4000.00} Closed account over-retention : XXXX accounts = $ XXXX {$4000.00} File status coding errors : $ XXXX {$1000.00} TOTAL POTENTIAL DAMAGES : $ XXXX {$9000.00} XXXX. THIRTY-DAY COMPLIANCE DEMAND You have thirty ( 30 ) days from receipt of this letter to : 1. Delete all disputed information that can not be completely verified 2. Provide written confirmation of deletions to my address 3. Furnish updated credit report showing deletions 4. Provide MOV documentation for any information you claim to verify FAILURE TO COMPLY will result in : Federal court action for FCRA violations Demand for maximum statutory damages Claims for punitive damages and attorneys fees State consumer protection law violations VIII. NO PARTIAL COMPLIANCE ACCEPTED This dispute demands COMPLETE DELETION of all accounts identified. Partial verification, continued reporting of incomplete information, or cosmetic changes are NOT ACCEPTABLE and will be considered continued willful violation of federal law. \nIX. PRESERVATION OF RIGHTS This letter preserves all rights under federal and state law. No action or inaction on your part will be construed as waiver of my rights to pursue all available legal remedies. \nX. RESPONSE REQUIREMENTS ALL WRITTEN RESPONSES must be sent to : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX Response must include : Written confirmation of deletions Updated credit report MOV documentation ( if claiming verification ) Contact information for further correspondence DEMAND FOR IMMEDIATE COMPLIANCE I expect full compliance within the statutory timeframe. Failure to properly address these violations will result in appropriate legal action to enforce my rights under federal consumer protection laws. \nRespectfully submitted, XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX ENCLOSURES : Copy of drivers license Copy of Social Security card Copy of utility bill ( address verification ) Copy of credit report pages showing disputed accounts","date_sent_to_company":"2025-06-01T00:33:21.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"713XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13826241","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-06-01T00:00:39.000Z","state":"LA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["CREDIT FILE STATUS VIOLATIONS Current Status : <em>FRAUD</em>_VICTIM_INITIAL_ALERT_V FILE_BLOCKED_FOR_PROMOTIONAL_PURPOSES <em>SECURITY</em>_FREEZE Violations : FCRA 605A - Improper <em>fraud</em> alert maintenance and notation FCRA 604 - File access restrictions improperly coded Demand : Correct file status coding immediately V. LEGAL DEMANDS AND REQUIREMENTS IMMEDIATE ACTIONS REQUIRED : 1. PERMANENT DELETION of all closed accounts identified above 2."]},"sort":[7.745796,"13826241"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3419505","_score":7.2891865,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"On Tuesday, XX/XX/2019 the bank, Current with mailing address listed as Finco Services , Inc., XXXX XXXX XXXX # XXXX, XXXX XXXX, NY XXXX sent me an email on or about XXXX XXXX CST stating that You are approved for instant deposits! Additionally the email stated that those funds will be available immediately. Despite taking Currents email in good faith, it has become clearly evident via a preponderance of evidence that both Current and XXXX XXXX XXXX located at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, OH XXXX intentionally violated the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act Titles X and XIV codified in relevant part at 12 U.S.C. 5301, 5481-5603, and in laws amended ( Title X ) ; and 12 U.S.C. 5481 note, 15 U.S.C. 1601 note, 1602, and 1631 et seq. ( Title XIV ) and have provided both regulatory bodies and their respective agents with a false certifications, fraud in the inducements or both with respect to their willingness to comply with statutory and regulatory oversight requirements on their own without the need of additional actionable regulatory oversight Additionally, in section 8 ( b ) ( 3 ) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act ( 12 U.S.C. 1818 ( b ) ( 3 ) ), it provides that if the Board of Governors determines that a condition, practice, or activity of a depository institution subsidiary or functionally regulated subsidiary of a non-bank financial company supervised by the Board of Governors does not comply with the regulations or orders prescribed by the Board of Governors under this Act, or otherwise poses a threat to the financial stability of the United States, the Board of Governors may recommend, in writing, to the primary financial regulatory agency for the subsidiary that such agency initiate a supervisory action or enforcement proceeding. Furthermore there are provisions within 12 U.S.C. 5363 that provides for Acquisitions of Banks and Treatment as a Bank Holding Company for the purposes of section 3 of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 ( 12 U.S.C. 1842 ). \n\nOn or about XX/XX/2019, I opened an account with XXXX XXXX and declined to opt into overdraft protection per the Opt-In Rule. My checking account balance at the end of the business on XX/XX/2019 was {$740.00}. There were no transactions made on my account by me or anyone else from that time until approximately noon on XX/XX/2019 when I attempted to make a debit card purchase and my transaction was declined. I found that to be highly irregular and logged into my mobile banking application with XXXX XXXX and noticed that my checking balance is - {$1900.00}. It showed a list of strange \" pending transactions '' that took my account from where legally and ethically it was at in the amount of {$740.00} to a high negative balance. On or about XX/XX/2019, Current using their elected electronic banking systems listed at least {$840.00} of valid deposits into my checking account within their bank that is not up to par or on the same levels as the go-to and industry gold standard of other electronic banking systems such as XXXX XXXX ( R ) with XXXX ( SM ). This electronic banking system did not allow for the transfer of funds that would cause overdraft in an account that did not opt-in to overdraft protection thus exposing them to tortuous liability whether that be initially a case of negligence or later found to be intentional as a result of the deliberate and willful actions chosen like that of XXXX XXXX XXXX and Current did and continue to do. \n\nThe Opt-In Rule, 12 CFR Part 1005 ( Regulation E ) at 1005.17 ( b ) ( 2 ), provides official interpretation of conditioning payment of other overdrafts on consumer 's  consent. This section requires banks to condition and decline the payment of any overdraft checks, ACH transactions, and other types of transactions on the consumer because the consumer has not affirmatively consented to the institution 's overdraft service for ATM and one-time debit card transactions. On XX/XX/2019, XXXX Bank willfully and deliberately violated this section of the law and changed my account from {$740.00} to XXXX. This violation came stemmed from an act of negligence on their part to maintain effective and efficient electronic banking systems and became libelous with intentional tortuous liability as a result of them willfully and deliberately using creative and artful means to cause me injury, knowingly violate 12 CFR Part 1005 and  erode more trust from not only the banking industry as a whole but specifically XXXX XXXX XXXX. \n\n12 CFR Part 1005 does not provide justification for violating the law by banks for any reason whatsoever and banks are actually the more egregious offender like that of contracts of adhesion but the intentional injury inflicted on my was likely from something that should have been commended for. Apparently, I randomly discovered via penetration testing a flaw within two banking systems that through my efforts and the methods that I used in particular, XXXX XXXX XXXX and I were actually able to stop and remedy this glitch that XXXX XXXX XXXX actually has an official and legal duty and obligation to correct, not me. XXXX XXXX XXXX apparently was either extremely cheap in acquiring their business assets like their software & information systems and/or seriously lacking in the acquisition and retention of skilled, competent, knowledgeable, ethical and professional personnel. \n\nAlso, in regards to Current bank, is it not customary, required and expect that desiring to and having opened an account that was and is listed specifically as a checking account that it be industry standard that the account have the ability to write actual checks regardless of whether the bank specifically provides customers checks as stated by one of their employees or whether they obtain them from a different vendor that could likely charge less and consumers wouldnt be subject to unfair business practices that could result from vertical and horizontal integration of products and apparently wouldnt be found to be uncommon at this particular bank. This bank took nearly 15 days for a check that was a mere {$900.00} ( which was made to feel like it was {>= $1,000,000} ) to be made available when they could have simply called the issuing bank verified the availability of funds and made them available to the consumer in less than a day like what can happen at Check Cashing locations and payday lenders whose operations are not always the most cost effective solution when compared with a legitimate bank. Having mentioned legitimate with respect to a bank, does the Patriot Act not mandate that certain information when opening account be verified by the bank prior to opening the account in order to prevent potential funding of terrorism? What if I can be used as a direct example of the deliberate failure by Current bank to properly and effectively check and require specific forms of government identification in order to open an account or them actually being able to technically and effectively verify a consumers social security number when that consumer in question has an actual credit freeze from a XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX and did not lift said freeze in order to confirm ones identity, verify that the information is indeed accurate or whether it is the actual individual in question opening the account or responsible for it. The internet can open a world of possibilities whether that the benefits or liabilities. In a world of call centers and those companies like XXXX and XXXX that are most definitely not your mom and pop there is something to be said about that personal and human relationship that allows for those smaller business to continue to operate and compete but also whereby one might consider the job of someone whose face they see everyday before they decide to eviscerate an company or not engage in economic Darwinism from being an organization that one uses personification on relationships to things like corporations or flags. In Native American culture when they hunt using bows and arrows and by tracking, such an act can becomes an acceptable Spiritual practice when the animal gives up its spirit to the hunter versus a truly skill less sportsman who uses trickery pheromones or guns with scopes that can see or shoot from miles away.\n\nWhile some may hold that some political, legal and most definitely Spiritual stances may be rather harsh, they are obviously missing human element that for many years within the his deceptive Republic has long been missing. The intentional withholding and/or the destructive of monetary funds can and has had a direct effect on the human species component of humanity with respect to things like life, health, safety, freedom, liberty as well as happiness. It should be assumed that at the time of birth into this world, choice of entry is not generally provided to infants. With that being said, things like food, shelter, water, clothing, healthcare, security are required in order to survive as well as thrive. While some may contend that these should be provided as basic human rights without cost regardless of quality as long as such are effective, they are nevertheless needed. Depriving someone of money to buy food to prevent malnutrition and starving, things like ruining ones credit report intentionally, in error or in the possibility of error by the involvement and placing the information of others at a level of regard to allow for negativity regardless of validity or in what public policy and popular public opinion might find that the responsible party for unfortunate creditworthiness lies no responsibility on the consumer by their direct or indirect but rather that of an other parties. If a consumer has historically met or went beyond expected debt repayment guidelines for the business standard business relationship and their employer terminated them unlawfully and their primary source of income was from wages is it their fault for the lack of accountability and an actual legitimate possibility of redress of grievances not just some mere window that is rather elaborate trickery that causes the statutory protections of other bedrock and fundamental protections that to become efficiently have existed for hundreds if not thousands of years or more throughout many countries and municipalities to become superfluous and eroded sacred common law that we cling to in times when unexpected and unprepared for events occur in the present that have a huge impact on the immediate future. An example of such is when proprietary and governmental organizations require certain information in order to do business whether there is choice or not in the matter and they have the legal and responsibility to perform certain duties.\n\nTwo agents that I met privately that were professionally employed by the XXXX XXXX XXXX made a comment that demonstrated officially agency policy regarding security clearances that was rather stupid and a determent. The listed the two major concerns to be drug use and financial or credit worthiness. Well with respect to drug use, I can see how an agency not specified charted with jurisdictional involvement in drug use to be ignorant. For professionals that understand and support drug use they understand that usage can reveal very quickly negative and unacceptable attributes and behaviors that might not reveal themselves until many years later or at a time when ones value as an asset becomes great enough where they become a liability for national security and beyond later. With respect to having relationships as a result of drug use, one might actually be mesmerized about how quickly certain individuals can be leveraged in support of locating those who wish to hide and those who wish to thrive. With respect to financial or credit worthiness being unable to pay ones debts should not immediately imply recklessness or responsibility for them happening at all or continuing. If certain agencies and organizations hold the belief that someone should accept any job or position to pay debts regardless of whether that debt is valid, then why should they expect one to stay at organization, be trusted to defend and enforce that which others are by no laughable means beyond reproach or be passionate and respected enough to perform at their highest levels as a result of many potentially inciting factors including compensation, benefits, enjoyment and work life-balance. However the main point that is being conveyed regarding the seriousness, reliability and reliance on financial metrics can jeopardize security clearances, equal housing opportunity, the ability to find employment with employers and even ability to become an employer for oneself by starting their own business and being able to receive financial credit or capital to startup that business. It allows the creation of such desperate cycle of bondage that is not truly conforming to term vicious cycle and challenges whether ones life on earth could be potentially XXXX. \n\nWith respect to Dodd Frank, it lists the term Too big to Fail. At what point is there a moral, ethical and legitimate reason for these colossal giants of adhesion due to their actual and potential powers, abilities and their actual and constructive utility does a regulatory agency or oversight authority feel it a statutory obligation to enter the fray on behalf of the consumer whether that be in support of that specific consumer or the macroeconomic applicability of consumer without being a party to what could be deemed conspiracy ( whether be one of silence or otherwise ) or what the military would consider dereliction of duty or abandoning ones post without being properly relieved whether be accidental and accountable or intentional and treasonous by a domestic enemy of the Constitution?\n\nThe Opt-In Rule, 12 CFR Part 1005 ( Regulation E ) at 1005.17 ( b ) ( 2 ), provides official interpretation of conditioning payment of other overdrafts on consumer 's  consent. This section requires banks to condition and decline the payment of any overdraft checks, ACH transactions, and other types of transactions on the consumer because the consumer has not affirmatively consented to the institution 's overdraft service for ATM and one-time debit card transactions. On XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX willfully and deliberately violated this section of the law and changed my account from {$740.00} to XXXX. This violation came stemmed from an act of negligence on their part to maintain effective and efficient electronic banking systems and became libelous with intentional tortuous liability as a result of them willfully and deliberately using creative and artful means to cause me injury, knowingly violate 12 CFR Part  1005 and erode more trust from not only the banking industry as a whole but specifically XXXX XXXX XXXX. \n\n12 CFR Part 1005 does not provide justification for violating the law by banks for any reason whatsoever and banks are actually the more egregious offender like that of contracts of adhesion but the intentional injury inflicted on my was likely from something that should have been commended for. Apparently, I randomly discovered via penetration testing a flaw within two banking systems that through my efforts and the methods that I used in particular, XXXX XXXX and I were actually able to stop and remedy this glitch that XXXX XXXX XXXX actually has an official and legal duty and obligation to correct, not me. XXXX XXXX XXXX apparently was either extremely cheap in acquiring their business assets like their software & information systems and/or seriously lacking in the acquisition and retention of skilled, competent, knowledgeable, ethical and professional personnel.","date_sent_to_company":"2019-10-27T05:31:08.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"60660","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3419505","timely":"No","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"FinCo Services Inc DBA Current","date_received":"2019-10-27T05:18:50.000Z","state":"IL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Banking errors"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Apparently, I randomly discovered via penetration testing a <em>flaw</em> within two banking systems that through my efforts and the methods that I used in particular, <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> and I were actually able to stop and <em>remedy</em> this glitch that <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> actually has an official and legal duty and obligation to correct, not me."]},"sort":[7.2891865,"3419505"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"2578139","_score":6.8971634,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"I was given a mortgage I did not qualify nor understand. I was made to move my securities from   XXXX   XXXX   to Merrill lynch/ Boa. My urla was fabricated to make me qualify. I suspect I was a victim of robo signing.\nI was too ill from all the stresses to understand, I was unsophisticated and not an investor and did not ever get a mortgage myself ( my x did all our financial dealings ). I went to professionals and expected them to be honest and take care of their fiduciary responsible it me and my children. THEY DID NOT!\nThey gave me a jumbo interest only 6.75 % mortgage, AND I paid the insurance and taxes!!\nNo government program would help me for the parameters they had me placed into!\nI could get no one to help!\nMy children 's account are lost. My IRA. My only securities!\nI WAS TOLD TO SIGN A PAPER, THE FOLLOWING YEAR AFTER THE MORTGAGE WAS CREATED, A PAPER THAT SAID I UNDERSTOOD MORTGAGING MY HOME AND INVESTING THE MONEY IN THE MARKET WA NOT ADVISED!! I UNDERSTOOD NONE OF THIS AND WAS NOT TOLD THIS, THIS DOCUMENT HAD TO BE EXPLAINED TO ME YEARS LATER. I JUST SIGNED WHAT THEY TOLD ME TO SIGN BACK THEN, I WAS TOO ILL TO KNOW BETTER.\nI DID WHAT THEY TOLD ME I NEEDED TO DO.\nI HAD TOTALLY TRUSTED THE MORTGAGE PERSONS, AND THE INVESTORS!\nI UNDERSTOOD NOTHING AT THIS TIME, AND RELIED ON THESE PROFESSIONALS!\nEVERYTHING DONE TO ME HAD THE OPPOSITE AND WORST EFFECTS POSSIBLE.\nI made it known I never worked, was 3 times abused and hospitalized, in a violent divorce, and under counseling AND GOT A  XXXX  WAS ON MEDICATION AND HAD TO WEAR BRACES ON MY TEETH FOR THE LAST BATTERY. I had   XXXX    small children at the time that I had to take care of by myself. I was told the female mortgage person that was helping me, and also divorcing that she totally understood my situation. I never worked and had no income. My x was mostly not paying, and hardly did.\nI had a judgment, I could never collect. HE STILL IS NOT PAYING!\nThe boa urla person I spoke to on the phone in the mortgage person 's office, did not sign the urla and was named   XXXX   XXXX   I spoke to him only by phone once ; the bank double my securities value, my home appraisal value and said I earned $   XXXX   a month, and that i was worth {$5.00} million. All not true. They were going to create an income from the mortgage money invested by them in Merrill lynch/ BOA and my original portfolio once liquidated to have enough income to pay all my bills and mortgage. This did not work and the opposite actually occurred. And, the capital gains from the sale of my portfolio almost killed me, and I as told it was not going to be much! it took me years to pay off!\nI was never allowed to refi or modify no matter how many times I tried, they always lost my paperwork OR made me start over! And, never helped me at all.\nI got extremely ill for all the  XXXX , this financial blunder and ruination of my life.\nI eventually ran out of money for the situation I was placed into by the mortgage and liquidation of my original portfolio and the purchase of bad securities. And, my children 's accounts were used as my assets, and theirs were also lost.\nI even got a call from one of the BOA refi persons at boa that she was quitting because boa gave no one the ability to refi or modify.\nPlease, look at all my details and documents. any professional who sees my case tells me that they had never seen this much abuse before!\nI need help from this bank and the incredible abuse I have had to endure. They did performed many illegalities to have me qualify a mortgage I did not, and had me invest the proceed into the market illegally and had me liquidate my original portfolio for no reason except to be able to reinvest and make more money off of me. They front end loaded the commissions and bought me unsuitable investments. I was bankrupted with the  XXXX ,   XXXX   XXXX   and  XXXX  they purchased! They made it necessary for me to have to sell off just to be able to live and pay my bills for me and my  XXXX  children.\nI have truly lived a nightmare for all these people did to me and my children!!\nI have zero social security ad zero retirement, I made all that known, my children money is gone now too for all of this. I went to the back and securities professionals for help and has financially annulated!\nIt ruined our lives!\nI need help and these evil, greedy people need to be punished.\n-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   Claimant, v.\nBANC OF AMERICA INVESTMENT SERVICES, INC., ( CRD #   XXXX   ) ;   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   ( CRD #   XXXX   ) ;   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   ( CRD #  XXXX  ) ;   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   ( CRD #   XXXX   ) ;   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   ( CRD #   XXXX   XXXX   ; and   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   ( CRD #  XXXX  ) Respondents.\nSTATEMENT OF CLAIM   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  , Claimant, makes this claim for compensation for losses arising from the Respondents recommendations of unsuitable securities transactions. Respondents breached their respective fiduciary duties, committed acts of securities fraud, negligence and misrepresentation by recommending and executing an investment strategy in which the Respondents arranged for the claimant, an unemployed mother of   XXXX   minor children, to take out a {$650000.00} home equity loan and invest the proceeds, on margin, in highly speculative and unsuitable equities, causing her to suffer financial losses.\nClaimant hereby demands arbitration of her claims against Banc of America Investment Services , Inc., ( CRD #   XXXX   ) ;   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   ( CRD #  XXXX  ) ;   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   ( CRD #  XXXX  ) ;   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   ( CRD #  XXXX  ) ;   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   ( CRD #   XXXX   ) ; and   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  . ( CRD #   XXXX   ), ( Respondents ) based upon transactions in account number   XXXX   maintained with Respondent Banc of America Investment Services , Inc. Claimant requests that the arbitration hearing be held in  XXXX , Fl.\nI. PARTIES Claimant   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX    is  a   XXXX   year old unemployed, divorced mother of   XXXX   minor children living in   XXXX   XXXX  , Florida. Respondent Banc of America Investment Services , Inc. is a broker dealer member of FINRA based in  XXXX , Massachusetts. Respondents   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   and   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   are registered representatives of Respondent Banc of America Investment Services , Inc, in  XXXX , Florida. Respondent   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  , at the times relevant to this Statement of Claim, was a registered representative of Respondent Banc of America Investment Services , Inc., and was also a Vice President and Client Manager with the Premier Banking and Investments program of the Bank of America, N.A. Respondent   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  . is a broker dealer member of FINRA based in  XXXX , TX. Respondent   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   is a registered representative of Respondent   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  ., who, at all relevant times lived and had his office in   XXXX   XXXX  , Fl.\nII. FACTUAL BACKGROUND By the summer of  XX/XX/XXXX , the Claimants protracted divorce proceedings left her with the sole ownership of an unencumbered residence on   XXXX   XXXX  , Florida, valued at about 1.2 million dollars, as well as sole ownership of a   XXXX   XXXX    investment account. The investment account contained about {$870000.00} in securities, with about {$390000.00} in margin debt, for a net value of about {$480000.00}. Each of these assets had been previously jointly owned by Claimant and her ex-husband. The Claimants ex-husband had been ordered to pay her alimony and child support and to pay off the margin debt on the investment account ; however, he was not making those payments.\nThe Claimants immediate financial problems were  XXXX fold. She had to support herself and   XXXX   minor children, but had no income other than the earning from her investment account. She was forced to make withdrawals from her available margin to meet her living expenses, a practice she knew had to stop. The Claimant had been a homemaker during most of her twenty-two year marriage and had never developed marketable job skills.\nSecondly, the Claimant had no idea how to manage the investment account ; it had been assembled and monitored during the course of her marriage by her financially sophisticated in-laws. She had no investment experience or knowledge and was desperate, even frantic, to find a solution to her financial problems.\nThe constant pressure of her financial and legal problems made her physically ill and emotionally exhausted. It was at this point that Respondent Grant presented himself as the solution to the Claimants financial woes. Describing himself to her as a financial Wizard, he asserted that his credentials and experience in the securities industry, particularly his position as Managing Director, Corporate Syndicate, Structured Products with Respondent   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  , gave him the ability to assist the Claimant in dealing with her financial difficulties. He advised the Claimant that he managed the investments of a small number of people, including some relatives, with great success. Respondent Grant described the Claimants financial position to her as being too long real estate, a situation that should be corrected by mortgaging the residence and investing the proceeds in the stock market. Respondent Grant assured the Claimant that the mortgage proceeds could be invested so as to provide a return sufficient to pay all of Claimants monthly expenses, including a mortgage payment.\nClaimant met with Respondent Buchanan and opened a margin brokerage account and money manager account with Respondent Banc of America Investment Services in  XX/XX/XXXX , at their   XXXX   XXXX   office. Respondents  XXXX  and  XXXX  acted as Financial Advisor and investment consultants on the account. Claimants   XXXX   XXXX   account was then transferred to Respondent Banc of America Investment Services. At that time that account had assets of about {$810000.00}, margin debt of {$270000.00} for a net value of {$520000.00}.\nEach of the Respondents recommended that the Claimant mortgage her residence and speculate with the proceeds in a margin account. In  XX/XX/XXXX , Respondent Grant arranged with Respondent Harber for the Claimant to receive a {$650000.00} loan from the Bank of America, secured by the Claimants residence. The loan required interest-only payments of {$3700.00} for ten years before switching to a principle and interest repayment schedule. The loan proceeds were immediately deposited into the Banc of America Investment Services , Inc., brokerage account. The margin debt was paid, leaving an account value of about {>= $1,000,000} ( of course, even though the margin debt was paid, the home equity loan of {$650000.00} was still owed and demanding interest payments of {$3700.00} every month. ) Each of the respondents, either directly or vicariously, asserted to the claimant that they could engineer a rate of return in her Banc of America Investment Services , Inc., investment account sufficient repay the mortgage and to support the claimant and her children. To earn this rate of return the Respondents then recommended that the existing equities in the portfolio be liquidated and other, more speculative equities be purchased. They assured Claimant that her tax consequences from such a liquidation would be minimal. The actual tax consequences were far from minimal ; the sales caused Claimant to incur a tax liability to the IRS of almost {$45000.00}, a bill she was unable to pay and on which she continues to make monthly payments.\nThe transition to a more aggressive speculative portfolio continued, and after a period of brief success, asset value of the portfolio began a precipitous decline. Eventually the portfolio included such highly speculative investments as preferred shares of   XXXX   XXXX  e, ( {$50000.00} invested ) ;   XXXX   XXXX   ( {$50000.00} invested ), and   XXXX   XXXX   ( {$100000.00} invested ), all of which became practically worthless. Respondents misrepresented the risk associated with the   XXXX   XXXX   and   XXXX   XXXX   investments by assuring the Claimant that the Federal government would stand behind those issues. A more complete description and analysis of these and other speculative investments will be presented at the arbitration hearing. At no time did any of the Respondents explain to the Claimant the risks she was undertaking, that she was risking not only her investment account, but her home as well. Respondents misrepresented the risk associated with the Claimants investments by assuring her of the viability of their investment scheme and by continuing to recommend speculative investments to her.\nThe Respondents assurances of an investment return sufficient to support the Claimant and her children never materialized. Claimant was forced to repeatedly draw upon her margin account to meet her expenses, a predictable and disastrous consequence of the Respondents plan of action. The Claimant sank deeper into debt as her portfolio value decreased and the value of her now mortgaged house plummeted.\nClaimant recognized from the beginning that she lacked the background, experience and investment knowledge to make intelligent informed decisions about her investments. She knew she needed help with her financial affairs. She relied completely upon Respondents Grant, Gear,   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX    and their professed expertise. On several occasions when the Claimant asked if she should obtain other financial advice, she was assured that that was not necessary, that the Respondents would take proper care of her.\nIII. CLAIM The investment strategy crafted by the collective actions of each of the Respondents was fatally flawed on two levels.\nAll of the investments made by the Respondents are tainted with the fundamental and underlying unsuitability of using a home equity loan to fund stock market speculation. The recommendation to mortgage the house and speculate with the proceeds and the misrepresentation of the risks associated with that strategy are a breach of fiduciary duty, negligent, breach of contract, violations of state and federal law, and violations of FINRA/NASD Rules.\n  XXXX   XXXX  , then NASD Vice  XXXX , and President, Regulatory Policy and Oversight, in a speech to Security Industry Association Compliance and Legal Conference on  XX/XX/XXXX , page 7 of 8, might have had the Claimants situation in mind when she stated : \" So, I will go out on a limb here and say that 99 % of the time, a recommendation that an investor mortgage his or her home in order to speculate in the securities market- IS UNSUITABLE- and subject to potential enforcement action.\nWe brought three enforcement cases last week against individual brokers for making unsuitable recommendations that included convincing clients to mortgage their houses. '' [ Emphasis in original. ] Respondents ignored the cautions of  XX/XX/XXXX  : As noted above, investing liquefied home equity presents unique risks and also may present conflicts.  XX/XX/XXXX  believes members should ensure that their supervisory systems address these risks and conflicts.\nFirms that recommend or facilitate investments of liquefied home equity should consider the extent to which customers are adequately informed of the risks and conflicts of such a strategy.  XX/XX/XXXX  has previously developed risk disclosure statements for certain other trading strategies, such as margin and day trading accounts.\nAlthough  XX/XX/XXXX  is not proposing a specific, standardized risk disclosure document,  XX/XX/XXXX  believes members recommending investments of liquefied home equity should pay particular attention to providing investors with adequate risk disclosure. Among the risks and conflicts of investing liquefied home equity are : ( 1 ) the potential loss of ones home ; ( 2 ) the fact that unlike other potential lenders, the member has an interest in having the proceeds of the loan used for investments that may generate commissions, mark-ups of fees for the member ; ( 3 ) the member or its affiliate may earn fees in connection with originating the loan ; ( 4 ) the impact of liquefied home equity on the ability to refinance a home mortgage ; and ( 5 ) depending on the amount of home equity liquefied and any change in home value, the homeowner may have negative equity in his or her home.\nMembers should also pay particular attention to their sales materials and oral presentations concerning investments of liquefied home equity.  XX/XX/XXXX  reminds its members that the promotion of liquefying home equity must be fair and balanced, and must address the associated risks. For example is a member presents a scenario in which the investment returns from liquefied equity will be sufficient to pay the costs of accessing such capital, the member should highlight the risk that such returns may not be achieved and that the customer may have to access additional sources of funding to pay the mortgage or equity line of credit or risk foreclosure.\nRespondents repeatedly assured the claimed that if she trusted their expertise they would manage her portfolio so that it would earn enough to pay the mortgage costs and all of her living expenses. The risks described in   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX    were not a real danger in the eyes of the respondents, because their expertise would lead the claimant through those risks to financial success, if only she would trust them. Of course, her trust was not rewarded with financial success, rather the portfolio lost hundreds of thousands of dollars, as will be shown at the hearing on this matter. These losses were made all the more devastating to the claimant as the value of her house plummeted to where its sale would probably not yield enough to pay off the mortgage.\nThe unsuitability of using liquefied home equity for speculation on margin was compounded when the respondents dumped the existing portfolio of dividend producing income stocks in favor of much more speculative equities, including but not limited to, the   XXXX   XXXX  ,   XXXX   XXXX   and   XXXX   XXXX   issues described above. The respondents constructed a portfolio of nearly 100 % equities for the claimant, putting her entire net worth at risk in the market.\nEach respondent had non delegable fiduciary responsibilities to Claimant and each were bound by Florida and Federal law, and by   XXXX   Rules to not make unsuitable investment recommendations and to not misrepresent the risks associated with the recommended investments. The Respondents each breached this fiduciary duty and recommended unsuitable investments to an unemployed mother of two minor children so that almost all of her net worth be speculatively invested on margin ; a recommendation that caused the claimant to suffer losses.\nThe Respondents each had a fiduciary duty to exercise the utmost good faith and loyalty in their dealings with Claimant.   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  ,   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   ( 11th Cir. 1987 ) ; T  XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX     XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   ( 11th Cir. 1983 ). Indeed, according to the SEC, securities brokers have a fiduciary obligation to their customers under both the common law rules of agency and the rules of the   XXXX   and  XXXX . See, In re   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   , Exchange Act Release No  XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   1988-89 Transfer Binder ] Fed. Sec. L.Rep. ( CCH ) 84,303 ( XX/XX/XXXX  ) ( The concept of just and equitable principles of trade embodies basic fiduciary responsibilities .... ).\nAccording to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, the fiduciary responsibilities of a broker include : 1. The duty to recommend a stock only after studying it sufficiently to become informed as to its nature, price and financial prognosis ; 2. The duty to carry out the customers orders promptly and in a manner best suited to serve the customers interests ; 3. The duty to inform the customer of the risks involved in purchasing or selling a particular security ; 4. The duty to refrain from self-dealing ; 5. The duty not to misrepresent any material fact to the transaction ; and 6. The duty to transact business only after obtaining prior authorization.\n  XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  .,   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   ( 11th Cir. 1987 ) ( quoting Lieb v. Merrill Lynch,   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX     XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   ( E.D. Mich. 1978 ) ).\nPart of that fiduciary duty is the well-recognized obligation of a broker to have a reasonable basis for each recommendation he makes. According to the SEC, the making of recommendations for the purchase of a security implies that the dealer has a reasonable basis for such recommendation, which, in turn, implies that, as a prerequisite, he shall have made a reasonable investigation. SEC Securities Act Release No.  XXXX  (  XX/XX/XXXX ) ;   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   ( 2d Cir. 1969 ) ;   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   ( 9th Cir. 1980 ) ;   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   ( S.D.N.Y. 1993 ) ;   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   ( E.D. Pa. 1993 ).\nRespondents breached their fiduciary duty to the Claimant by failing to have a reasonable basis for recommending liquefying the claimants home equity, selling off her existing portfolio of blue chip securities, and using all of the proceeds to buy speculative equities. The respondents claim that they could cause the portfolio to earn enough to pay the mortgage and support the claimant and her family would have required an immediate and consistent after-tax return of more than 10 %. There was no reasonable basis for such a claim. The respondents not only claimed the ability to meet this goal, they also failed to advise the claimant that there was a high probability that they would not meet that goal, and that failure to meet the goal could cause the claimant to loss her portfolio as well as her home.\nThe rules of the self-regulatory organizations such as the   XXXX   and the   XXXX   set out general standards of industry conduct and are evidence of the standard of care by which brokers must abide in dealing with their clients. In re   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   [ 1988-89 Transfer Binder ] Fed. Sec. L. Rep. ( CCH )   XXXX    (  XX/XX/XXXX  ). See also   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX     XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   ( 5th Cir. Unit A, 1981 ) ( industry rules are excellent tools against which to assess in part the reasonableness or excessiveness of a brokers handling of an investors account ) ;   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   ( N.D. Tex. 1976 ) ( violations of industry rules and practices give rise to common law claim for negligence ). Thus, violations of industry rules can be evidence of breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, common law fraud, securities fraud, breach of contract, and failure to supervise.\nRespondents, as members of the  XXXX , are subject to Conduct Rules, and as such, were obligated to provide services to Claimant in conformity with those Rules. However, by the conduct outlined above, Respondents failed to abide by industry rules, including the following : a ) NASD Conduct Rule 2110 ( members shall observe high standards of commercial honor and just and equitable principles of trade ) ; b ) NASD Conduct Rule 2310 ( suitability ) ; c ) NASD Conduct Rule 2120 ( prohibition of the use of any manipulative, deceptive or other fraudulent device or contrivance ) ; and d ) NASD Conduct Rule 3010 ( supervision ).\nRespondents had a duty to know the securities they were recommending for Claimants account and to reasonably believe that those transactions were suitable for the Claimant. According to the SEC, the making of a recommendation for the purchase of a security implies that the dealer has a reasonable basis for such recommendation, which, in turn, requires that, as a prerequisite, he shall have made a reasonable investigation.   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   ( Feb. 2, 1962 ) ;   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   ) ; In re   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   [ 1983-1984 Transfer Binder ] Fed . Sec. L. Rep. ( CCH ) 83,459 ( SEC 1983 ).\nWhere unsuitable recommendations are made, or unsuitable securities are purchased, this duty is breached. Likewise, making unfounded statements or failing to disclose negative material facts to a customer constitutes a violation of these industry rules. Measured against these rules as a standard of a broker dealers duty to its customer, the Respondent was at a minimum negligent in the performance of its duties to the Claimant and Claimant is entitled to damages for this negligence.\nRespondents Banc of America Investment Services , Inc., and   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  ., each had a statutory and common law duty to exercise reasonable supervision over their respective registered representatives and the securities they recommended including those recommended to the Claimants. Reasonable supervision would have detected the fact that the Claimants account was 100 % invested and over-concentrated in speculative securities,\nfunded with liquefied home equity and thereby needlessly exposed to excessive and unacceptable risk. Any investigation would have revealed that the investments were sold to the claimant on the basis of misrepresentations and omissions of material facts about the risks of the investments. In addition to liability for its own failure to supervise and liability as a statutory control person of Claimants sales representative, Respondents Banc of America Investment Services , Inc., and   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  , are also vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of its employees and agents under the doctrine of respondeat superior. In the Matter of   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  . ; SEC Release No.   XXXX   ; Admin. Proc. No.   XXXX   XXXX    XX/XX/XXXX ) ;    XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX    ( M.D. Fla. 2003 ) ;   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  . v.   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   ( S.D. Fla. 1990 ).\nThe recommendation of unsuitable investments or the giving of unsuitable investment advice constitutes fraud under Florida law.   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  ,   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   ( Fla. 1st DCA 1990 ). Mere negligence in the giving of investment advice constitutes both statutory and common law fraud in Florida.   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX    XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   ( Fla. 3rd DCA 2001 ) ;   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX    XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   ( 11th Cir. 1985 ). Proof of loss causation is not required in civil securities proceeding under sections 517.211 and 517.301 Florida Statutes. E.F.   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  , 537 So. 2d. 978 ( Fla. 1989 ).\nMisrepresenting and omitting material facts about investments also constitute violations of Chapter 517. Under Florida law, it is not necessary for the Claimant to prove scienter ( intent ), causation or reliance. Merrill Lynch v  XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   ( Fla. 3rd DCA 1975 ) ;   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  . ;   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   ( S.D. Fla. 1990 ). Claimant is therefore entitled to rescind the purchases of investments from the Respondent. Section 517.211 ( 1 ) Fla. Stat.\nIV. DAMAGES The Florida Investor Protection Act, in Sections 517.211 ( 3 ) through ( 6 ), specifies the legal remedy for a violation of the investor protection provisions of Chapter 517. Where the securities have not been sold, the investor is entitled to a refund of the purchase price, plus interest at the legal rate provided in Section 55.03 Fla. Stat., less any interest received on the investment. Section 517.211 ( 3 ) ( a ) Fla. Stat.,   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   ( 11th Cir. 1990 ). Moreover, Respondent is not entitled to offset losses from transactions which violate Chapter 517 with interest, dividends or profits from other transactions in the account.   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX    supra.\nWhen a Chapte r 517 vi olation is found, Florida and federal courts agree that statutory damages under Chapter 517 Section 211 are automatic and mandatory, with no discretion left to judges, jurors or arbitrators to fashion a remedy. Florida Statutes Section 517.301,   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   ( 11th Cir. 1992 ),   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   ( Fla. 1991 ). Likewise, a prevailing party under Chapter 517 is entitled to attorneys fees unless the awarding of fees would be unjust. Section 517.211 ( 6 ) Fla. Stat. ;   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  , 7  XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   ( Fla. 5th DCA 1999 ) ;   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX     XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   ( Fla. 2001 ).\nSince the Claimant still holds some of the securities in her account, she is entitled to rescind the purchase transactions and recover the purchase price paid for them less any income received on them. The Claimant is also entitled to an award of interest at the statutory rate as well as the refunding of interest that she has paid the Respondent for the margin loan. The Claimant is also entitled to an award of punitive damages under the Florida law of common law fraud and breach of fiduciary duty. Finally, the Claimant is entitled to recover hers attorneys fees incurred in this arbitration.\nClaimant therefore requests that the panel award her the following relief : 1. statutory rescission, including the rescission of the entire {$650000.00} home equity loan deposited in her account, and the rescission of the unsuitable transactions in the account involving assets in the account other than the liquefied home equity loan proceeds. In connection with Claimants request for rescission, the Claimant hereby tenders to the Respondent all relevant investments in her account ; 2. disgorgement of all commissions and fees paid to the Respondent ; 3. other compensatory damages in such amount as the arbitrators shall determine ; 4. all of Claimants costs, expenses and disbursements in pursuing this arbitration ; 5. full reimbursement of all filing, forum fees and hearing fees ; 6. Claimants reasonable attorneys fees, with such amount to be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction in a confirmation proceeding following an Award by the panel in this matter pursuant to the Florida Arbitration Code, Fla. Stat. Section 682.01 et. seq., and as mandated by the appellate courts of the State of Florida ; 7. a finding that the Respondent committed violations of Florida Stat. Chapter 517 ; 8. pre-judgment and post-judgment interest until any award is paid ; 9. return on Claimants account calculated as if handled with her stated investment objectives ; and 10. such other and further relief, including but not limited to punitive damages, as the arbitrators deem just and proper in the circumstances.","date_sent_to_company":"2017-07-18T18:50:42.000Z","issue":"Closing on a mortgage","sub_product":"Other type of mortgage","zip_code":"32952","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"2578139","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2017-07-18T17:12:27.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Thus, violations of industry rules can be evidence of breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, common law <em>fraud</em>, <em>securities</em> <em>fraud</em>, breach of contract, and failure to supervise.\nRespondents, as members of the  <em>XXXX</em> , are subject to Conduct Rules, and as such, were obligated to provide services to Claimant in conformity with those Rules."]},"sort":[6.8971634,"2578139"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7845596","_score":6.4297814,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"Having been a Capital One Venture One account holder in good standing for a number of years, I was deeply troubled by how my fraud alert issue was recently handled, prompting a formal written complaint to their Corporate Headquarters by certified mail on Tuesday XX/XX/2023 What began as a potential fraud alert on my account in response to a purchase I attempted to make on XX/XX/2023 devolved into a complete systems failure by Capital One to have additional protocols in place to process identity verifications. Following a week of attempts to verify my identity, I was permanently locked out of my account, in spite of submitting numerous forms of valid state and federal identification, as well as requested support documents. \n\nAs a result of this completely avoidable and easily remedied action, my account is now permanently restricted. I can no longer use my credit card nor access my XXXX plus hard earned awards points. \n\nHow could this happen? \nI will recount the details of my unfortunate exchanges with Capital One Venture One as thoroughly as possible. \n\nOn XX/XX/2023, I attempted to make a purchase in the amount of {$1900.00} for a newsletter subscription to XXXX XXXX, a financial newsletter subscription service. \nI received an alert via phone and email that I needed to call to verify that I indeed was making this purchase. \n( Typically, with past alerts, I have received a simple text asking me to respond with either a ( Y ) es, confirming the purchase, or a ( N ) o, which would signify that there was an attempted fraud on my card. I did not receive that. If I had, this matter could have been resolved in seconds. ) At that time I proceeded to call Capital One to confirm that I did indeed authorize the {$1900.00} charge, and that there was no attempted fraud. After that call was made the representative lifted the fraud alert, allowing me to access me credit card. \n\nHowever, just moments after it was lifted, the fraud alert was reinitiated and my account was restricted again.The representative did not explain why the restriction was reinitiated, which I found to be an inadequate response. After pressing the issue, the representative said that the credit card attempted to re initiate the {$1900.00} charge, which flagged another fraud alert, resulting in my being locked out again. Why did Capital One do that? If they had simply allowed me to re initiate the charge myself, I would have verified it was a legitimate charge and the issue would have been easily settled. \n\nI was then asked to provide more information that would once again verify my identity. \n\nAfter doing so, the representative said she would call me back on another line to verify that this was indeed my cell phone number. Unfortunately, that call went right to voicemail, as I had my incoming calls on call forward. We were then disconnected. Events began to needlessly escalate from that point forward. \n\nThe next time I called back, XX/XX/XXXX, I was told that another layer of identity verification was now required. I was somewhat perturbed yet understood that this may be necessary in order to protect my account. Fine. A link was texted that allowed me to send a photo of the front and back of my current valid Arizona State Drivers License. After several attempts I was finally able to successfully upload my ID, but the representative apparently could not see the images. I was frustrated and said I would call back the next morning to attempt the verification again. Hours had ticked by and I had meetings to attend. \nThe next business day, the representative/supervisor I reached said she could no longer send me a text for verification and that I would NOW have to respond via an email link. Ok. Fine.\n\nVia the email link I was finally able to upload my ID. The supervisor said I should wait on the line while she scanned the my drivers license to verify it. This all should finally be resolved, I thought.\n\nUnfortunately not.\n\nThe supervisor returned to the phone to inform me that inexplicably, my valid, current Arizona Drivers License was not able to be verified. I was flabbergasted. I told the supervisor that there must be some mistake as my license is an absolutely current and valid State ID. I tried to send it again. Same result. She could not explain why a valid current form of ID was rejected. This was more and more looking like an internal systems failure. ( I took the photos with my XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX.which has always taken easily upload-able, readable and valid documents, including various forms of ID. ) The bar code on the ID should have been read properly. \n\nWhen I called back a bit later, I told the representative that I was also in possession of my current, valid Federal US Passport, as I was currently in XXXX for business. Would that serve as an acceptable replacement? The supervisor asked me to submit it. I did. He scanned it, and, after review told me that it was indeed a valid form of identification and that he was able to immediately reinstate access to my account. He apologized for the inconvenience. I thought, well, finally, after 3 days of dealing with this, the issue was settled. However, within minutes of my fraud alert being lifted, it was again, inexplicably locked. My patience at this point was being sorely tested. There seemed to be not only an internal systems failure, but a level of customer service confusion that was needlessly escalating an easily resolvable issue. \n\nWhen I called back to inquire as to why my account was locked again,, I was told I was now required to submit 3 separate pieces of identification : A valid State ID, a Social Security Card and a utility bill verifying my address, account # and billing details. I had access to all 3 back in XXXX XXXX, but I could not respond until I got back home Tuesday, XX/XX/XXXX. I was informed that my valid, Federal current US Passport was not an acceptable, even though after scanning it, they said it was deemed a valid Passport. ( I used the same XXXX XXXX to upload that document fyi. ) There was no reason given as to why. This was becoming a tremendous inconvenience. However I was sure it would all be resolved as soon as I presented all required documentation. \n\nWeek 2 : XXXX XX/XX/2023 I called Capital One that morning, and after being connected with yet another Supervisor, I explained what had happened the previous day ; that my account was unlocked after uploading a copy of my US Passport and then inexplicably restricted again. She had no explanation. Instead she reiterated that I should upload all 3 forms of previously requested Identification. I alerted the Supervisor that my valid Arizona Drivers License had been previously rejected. She could not explain why. No worries, I told her, I also had a valid, current recently issued California Real ID card that I could send instead. I now had multiple forms of identification. She requested I submit both my Arizona Drivers license ( again ) and the California Real ID Card. I did so. My Social Security Card was also uploaded, scanned and verified. My utility bill was sent, scanned and, after calling the utility company with me on the line to confirm, also verified. However, not only was my Drivers License once again rejected but so was my legal, current California Real ID card!\n\nI could not believe that this was happening. I told her that this must be an internal issue. She did not respond. I then suggested that I would be happy to upload my valid Federal US Passport again, ( the same one that a previous supervisor had accepted on XX/XX/XXXX, which had been scanned, verified, and approved, resulting in the initial lifting of the restriction on my account ) At that time the supervisor placed me on hold and then confirmed that a current valid Federal US Passport was not an acceptable form of Identification. It was shocking to me that a valid current US passport was not an acceptable back up form of acceptable Identification.\n\nThis customer service response represents perhaps the single most egregious example of what was becoming more and more apparent ; that Capital One has a confusing, contradictory and deeply flawed identity verification process that does not provide for an effective alternative method of identity verification ; In this case, a valid, current Federal US Passport.\n\nHow could 2 valid state IDs be rejected and a valid Federal US Passport not be acceptable? Baffling. Not one supervisor had an answer for me.\n\nOver the next two days, I spoke to several more supervisors who said that my account would remain locked and that no more attempts to upload documents would be accepted. There was nothing more they could do. At that time I was still able to access my account online. I asked the representative how I could access or redeem my XXXX plus accrued award points if my account was now permanently restricted? The supervisor said that I could not and would not be able to access them. Again, I could not believe what I was hearing. Infuriating. \n\nOn Friday XXXX XXXX, I received an email from Capital One informing me that a new document was available in my account to review. However, when I attempted to sign in to my account, I found my user name and password was not accepted. I was locked out. When I called Capital One to ask why I could not gain access, the representative said that because my account was permanently restricted I could no longer access it. I told him I needed access to my statements so that I could properly prepare expenditures for my 2023 tax returns. He said that was no longer possible ( but confirmed that my Autopay was still in place and that my bank account would still be debited, as always, for the full payment due ).\n\nI was stunned beyond words. Literally stunned. And furious. \n\nOn Friday, XXXX XXXX..over one week since this debacle began, I called and asked the representative where I could mail or email a formal written complaint. She wasnt sure. She said she would try to find out. A supervisor came on the line and informed me that there was no email, or mailing address available to file a formal complaint. Really? She suggested I sign in to my account and send a message. I almost burst out laughing. Obviously, as I could no longer access my account, that would be impossible. She had no response. It was as if I was speaking to a bot. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I called again, and told the representative that I had received an email from Capital One informing me that an outstanding balance would be withdrawn from my checking account via Autopay on XX/XX/2023. I told the representative that I needed to access to my statements to confirm that the charges were accurate. THIS time, the representative said, no problem. XXXX XXXX would email me my statements for review. I was extremely surprised, because the week before a representative told me that as my account was locked, I would not be able to access my statements.. \nWithin the hour, the statements were sent to me via email. \nAgain, confusing and contradictory customer service responses. \n\nWhen I called the next day to attempt to apply my XXXX plus awards points to my balance due, I was told that as my account was permanently locked, I would not be able to access my awards posts and that my balance due would be extracted from my bank account on XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nI made one more attempt to ask if I could upload my ID 's and supporting materials to see if perhaps this time they would be accepted. I told her that I would even use a brand new XXXX XXXX XXXX camera to upload to see if that might make the difference. She was kind enough to send me a link to do so. She sympathized with my situation however she said she could not guarantee that the department that reviews documents would permit another attempt to upload current, valid documents and ID 's. I told her I thought that was extremely unfair, and that I would be unfairly penalized, resulting in the forfeiture of my Award Points. Was there any recourse.? She could not answer. As of this date, I have not received a response. \n\nThis frustrating and truly degrading series of events is why I sent a formal letter of complaint to Capital One Corporate Headquarters, detailing what has been an exhausting, chaotic, unprofessional, incompetent and utterly unacceptable customer service experience. Again, this should have been an easily and quickly resolved issue on day one, call one.\n\nBy the way, I used another credit card to process the same {$1900.00} charge. It took 10 seconds to approve. \n\nThe issue that now remains unresolved is how I will be reimbursed .... or able to apply my XXXX Award Points against future purchases, if I no longer have access to my Credit Card account? \n\nI am requesting that the CFPB investigate this issue. \nI should be given every opportunity to re establish my account and claim my Awards, or receive financial compensation equalling the full value of my accrued awards. \n\nThank you.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-11-16T18:15:37.000Z","issue":"Other features, terms, or problems","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"90068","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7845596","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","date_received":"2023-11-13T19:59:46.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Problem with rewards from credit card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["When I called back to inquire as to why my account was locked again,, I was told I was now required to submit 3 separate pieces of identification : A valid State ID, a Social <em>Security</em> Card and a utility bill verifying my address, account # and billing details. I had access to all 3 back in <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em>, but I could not respond until I got back home Tuesday, XX/XX/<em>XXXX</em>."]},"sort":[6.4297814,"7845596"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16859092","_score":5.862405,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"1. Introduction At this time XX/XX/XXXX Goldman Sach not honoring and notr refunded any cent to me This document outlines the case of Claimant, XXXX XXXX, against Respondent, Goldman Sachs Bank USA ( \" the Bank '' ), concerning the systemic mishandling of her Apple Card account over a period of more than four years. This dispute is not a series of isolated customer service issues, but a documented pattern of persistent billing errors, improper dispute reversals, inaccurate credit reporting, discriminatory practices, and bad-faith conduct by the Bank. The following chronological narrative will demonstrate the Bank 's violations of multiple federal and state consumer protection laws, which have inflicted significant financial, reputational, and emotional harm upon the Claimant. 2.\nThe Genesis of the Dispute : An Unresolved Charge Ignites a Pattern of Failure ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) The initial incident that sparked this protracted dispute serves as a microcosm of the systemic failures that would plague XXXX XXXX for years. The Bank 's handling of a single disputed transaction for a non-delivered product reveals a foundational breakdown in its billing and dispute resolution processes, setting a precedent of error and distrust.\n\nThe dispute originated from a XXXX * * XXXX XXXX purchase made in XX/XX/XXXX. The product was never delivered to XXXX XXXX. Despite this, the Bank proceeded to improperly bill her for eight separate monthly installments of * * XXXX, including in XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and six further charges in XXXX. These repeated billings for a phantom product resulted in over {$780.00} in unauthorized charges, interest, and related fees. \n\nThe Bank 's actions regarding this matter were contradictory and negligent. After years of improper billing and failed dispute resolutions, the Bank finally admitted in a formal response to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) that an \" inadvertent processing error occurred '' concerning this dispute. However, this admission came only after profound harm had already been done, with the credit for this charge only being made permanent on XX/XX/XXXX, XXXXnearly four years after the initial transaction. This unresolved issue established a foundation of error and distrust, precipitating a wider breakdown in account management that continues to this day. \n\n3. A System-Wide Breakdown : Pervasive Errors and Security Lapses ( XXXX - XXXX ) The initial billing error was not an anomaly but the first sign of a complete breakdown in the Bank 's dispute resolution process, as mandated by federal law. Evidence demonstrates that the Bank 's systems were incapable of correctly processing disputes, leading to a cycle of errors that harmed XXXX XXXX repeatedly over four years. \n\nThis systemic failure is evidenced by the sheer volume of issues ; XXXX XXXX was forced to file at least 67 transaction disputes between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. These were not isolated incidents but part of a recurring pattern where the Bank would issue a temporary credit only to reverse it later without proper investigation or justification. This flawed cycle is clearly illustrated by a XXXX XXXX transaction from the XX/XX/XXXX statement : Date Action Amount Result XX/XX/XXXX DISPUTE CREDIT - {$160.00} Temporary credit applied. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX DISPUTE REVERSAL + {$160.00} Credit improperly reversed without resolution. \n\nThis pattern of mismanagement extended to critical security failures. In XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX was stolen. She immediately reported the theft to XXXX with instructions to lock the card and secure the account. Despite this timely notification, the Bank failed to take effective action, allowing criminals to make over {$1000.00} in unauthorized charges. This documented pattern of mishandling disputes and failing to secure the account after being notified of theft constitutes a clear abrogation of the Bank 's statutory duties under the Fair Credit Billing Act ( FCBA ) and the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ).\n\n4. Compounded Harm : Devastating Credit Damage and Discriminatory Barriers The Bank 's procedural failures were not victimless errors ; they inflicted profound, tangible, and lasting financial and personal harm upon XXXX XXXX. This harm was compounded by discriminatory practices that systematically blocked her access to resolution, creating an inescapable cycle of financial distress and frustration.\n\nFirst, the Bank violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) by furnishing inaccurate and derogatory information to credit reporting agencies. On XX/XX/XXXX, the Bank reported XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX account as \" Charged Off. '' This severely negative report was inherently false and misleading because it was based on a balance containing disputed amountsincluding the {$630.00} chargethat the Bank itself later admitted were the result of its own \" processing error. '' Reporting this balance as \" Charged Off '' constitutes a willful violation of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2, as the Bank furnished information to credit reporting agencies that it knew, or consciously disregarded the risk that it was, inaccurate, given its own admission of a foundational \" processing error. '' Second, the Bank violated California 's Unruh Civil Rights Act through discriminatory practices. XXXX XXXX has a documented XXXX  XXXX, a fact of which the Bank was informed. Despite this, the Bank systematically insisted on voice authentication as a primary method for account security and dispute resolution. This rigid, one-size-fits-all protocol repeatedly denied her full and equal access to the services necessary to protect her account and address the Bank 's errors. These barriers were particularly egregious during a period when XXXX XXXX was medically incapacitated due to a tracheotomy, rendering voice communication impossible. The Banks failure to provide this reasonable accommodation was not a separate, isolated harm ; it was the primary barrier that prevented XXXX XXXX from addressing the cascade of other billing and security failures, thus compounding the financial and emotional damages. This failure constitutes a distinct and actionable violation of California 's Unruh Civil Rights Act, which guarantees all persons equal access to business services regardless of disability.\n\n5. Evidence of Willful Bad Faith : Coercion and Breach of Promise ( XXXX ) The Bank 's pattern of conduct culminated in recent actions that demonstrate a shift from gross negligence to willful, bad-faith behavior. These events show a deliberate and calculated effort to leverage its position to the detriment of XXXX XXXX, providing unequivocal evidence of oppression and fraud. \n\nIn XX/XX/XXXX, the Bank engaged in coercive conduct. It was holding an accepted refund of XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX that was due to XXXX XXXX since XX/XX/XXXX. The Bank 's representatives conditioned the release of these funds on a coercive requirement : XXXX XXXX had to agree to close a separate, valid * XXXX XXXX dispute related to a XXXX computer. \n\nForced into an impossible position and seeking to recover the larger sum, the Claimant complied with this condition. However, the Bank subsequently failed to honor its promise. To date, the {$3800.00} refund remains uncredited to her account. This sequence of events is a textbook case of fraudulent inducement and a clear breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. This incident is not a misunderstanding ; it is unambiguous evidence of a willful, oppressive, and fraudulent pattern of conduct that justifies punitive measures.\n\n6. Summary of Legal Violations and Causes of Action The aforementioned facts, supported by extensive documentation, constitute multiple and severe violations of federal and state law. The following is a summary of the causes of action against the Respondent : Violation of the Fair Credit Billing Act ( FCBA )/ TILA : The Bank failed to properly investigate and resolve 67 disputes in a timely manner as required by law. It illegally assessed unauthorized installment charges for a non-delivered item and is currently engaged in an ongoing violation by illegally retaining the {$3800.00} accepted refund.\n\nViolation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) : The Bank willfully furnished inaccurate and derogatory information to credit reporting agencies by reporting the account as \" Charged Off '' based on a balance that it knew, or should have known, included amounts resulting from its own admitted processing errors.\n\nViolation of California 's Unruh Civil Rights Act : The Bank denied a person with a permanent XXXX  XXXX full and equal access to its account and security services by systematically insisting on discriminatory voice authentication protocols, failing to provide reasonable accommodation even when aware of the Claimant 's medical incapacitation.\n\nFraudulent Inducement & Breach of Contract : The Bank coerced the Claimant to close a valid {$500.00} dispute under the false pretense and fraudulent promise of releasing a {$3800.00} refund, which the Bank then failed to do, constituting a clear breach of its duty of good faith and fair dealing.\n\n7. Conclusion and Prayer for Relief The evidence presented demonstrates a multi-year pattern of systemic and willful misconduct by Goldman Sachs Bank USA. The Banks actions and failures have caused severe and\nmultifaceted harm to XXXX XXXX, including direct financial loss, catastrophic damage to her credit and reputation, and significant emotional distress resulting from years of battling a faceless and unresponsive institution that unlawfully discriminated against her. To remedy these harms, the Claimant respectfully requests that the Arbitrator issue an Award encompassing the following relief.\n\nFirst, an award for Actual Damages to make the Claimant whole : Category Amount Claimed Justification FCBA Restitution ( Held Funds ) {$3800.00} Immediate release of Accepted Refund held since XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nFCBA/Contract Overpayments {$780.00} Restitution for eight unauthorized installments on non-delivered item.\n\nLoss from Fraudulent Condition {$500.00} Loss from the XXXX dispute Claimant was forced to close.\n\nOther Documented Fraud Losses {$4500.00} Losses from other documented disputes and improper charges.\n\nTotal Actual Damages {$9700.00} Second, an award for General Damages of {$50000.00} as compensation for the severe emotional distress, XXXX, and humiliation caused by years of financial uncertainty, the destruction of her credit standing, and the degrading experience of disability discrimination.\n\nThird, an award for Litigation Expenses of {$1800.00}, representing compensation for 90 hours of uncompensated time XXXX XXXX was forced to spend compiling evidence, documenting errors, and preparing for this arbitration as a direct result of the Bank 's misconduct.\n\nFinally, the Claimant seeks Statutory, Injunctive, and Punitive Relief, including : An order compelling the Bank to direct all major credit reporting agencies to immediately delete the \" Charged Off '' status and all related negative tradelines from the Claimant 's credit files.\n\nAn order requiring the Bank to implement and maintain a permanent, secure, non-voice authentication protocol for customers with documented XXXX  XXXX. \nAn award of statutory and punitive damages sufficient to punish the Bank for its willful, oppressive, and fraudulent conduct and to deter such conduct in the future. \nReimbursement of all XXXX XXXX filing fees. \nThis relief is necessary and justified to make the Claimant whole and to hold the Respondent accountable for its sustained and egregious violations of the law. \n\n\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX On XX/XX/XXXX, at XXXX, XXXX XXXX wrote : .DEMAND SUBMISSION - XXXX AMENDED STATEMENT OF CLAIM AND PRE-HEARING BRIEF XXXX XXXX CASE NO. : XXXX CLAIMANT RESPONDENT XXXX XXXX GOLDMAN SACHS BANK USA DATE OF AMENDED FILING : XX/XX/XXXX Claimant XXXX XXXX submits this Amended Statement of Claim against Respondent Goldman Sachs Bank USA ( \" Goldman Sachs '' or \" Bank '' ) for willful, systemic, and fraudulent violations of federal and state consumer protection laws.\n\nI. JURISDICTION AND STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS The Bank 's conduct spans over four years and constitutes a pattern of violations under the Fair Credit Billing Act ( FCBA ), the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), and the Unruh Civil Rights Act.\n\nA. Systemic Failure to Resolve Billing Errors ( FCBA Violations ) Unauthorized Installment Overpayments : Despite a XX/XX/XXXX XXXX Store purchase for {$630.00} being non-delivered, the Bank improperly billed the Claimant for eight separate monthly installments of {$53.00} ( including XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and six further charges in XXXX ). These charges led to over {$780.00} in unauthorized principal, interest, and fees.\n\nBank 's Admission of Error : The Bank later confirmed in its official response that an \" inadvertent processing error occurred '' regarding the {$630.00} dispute, which was finally made permanent on XX/XX/XXXX, nearly four years after the initial transaction.\n\nContinuing FCBA Violation : The Bank is currently holding an Accepted Refund amount of {$3800.00} since XX/XX/XXXX. The failure to credit these acknowledged funds is a fresh, continuing violation of the FCBA.\n\nB. Fraudulent Inducement and Coercive Practices Fraudulent Condition : In XX/XX/XXXX, the Bank conditioned the release of the {$3800.00} held refund via direct deposit on the Claimant being forced to close a separate {$500.00} XXXX XXXX computer dispute.\n\nBreach of Promise : The Claimant complied by closing the {$500.00} dispute ; however, the Bank failed to honor its promise, and the {$3800.00} refund remains uncredited as of this filing. This action constitutes fraudulent inducement and a breach of the duty of good faith.\n\nC. Discrimination and Inaccurate Credit Reporting ( Unruh Act/FCRA ) Disability Discrimination ( Unruh Act ) : The Claimant, who has a documented XXXX  XXXX, was repeatedly denied equal access to account security and dispute resolution services because the Bank systematically insisted on voice authentication.\n\nInaccurate Credit Reporting ( FCRA ) : The Bank reported the account as \" Charged Off '' on XX/XX/XXXX. This negative report was inherently inaccurate because it was based on a balance that included disputed amounts, which the Bank subsequently admitted were subject to its own \" processing error ''.\n\nII. CAUSES OF ACTION No.\n\nCause of Action Legal Basis and Key Facts I.\n\nVIOLATION OF THE FAIR CREDIT BILLING ACT ( FCBA )/ TILA Failure to investigate and correct billing errors ( the 67 disputes ). Illegal assessment of eight unauthorized {$53.00} installments. Illegal retention of the {$3800.00} held refund.\n\nII.\n\nVIOLATION OF THE FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT ( FCRA ) Negligent and willful non-compliance in furnishing inaccurate information by reporting the account as \" Charged Off '' on XX/XX/XXXX, based on a balance that included amounts the Bank later admitted were erroneous.\n\nIII.\n\nVIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA 'S UNRUH CIVIL RIGHTS ACT Denying a person with a permanent XXXX  XXXX full and equal access to security and account services by insisting on discriminatory voice authentication protocols.\n\nIV.\n\nFRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT & BREACH OF CONTRACT Coercing the Claimant to close the {$500.00} dispute under the false pretense and fraudulent promise of immediately releasing the {$3800.00} refund.\n\nIII. RELIEF SOUGHT Claimant demands an Award against Goldman Sachs Bank USA, including but not limited to : A. ACTUAL DAMAGES ( Restitution and Financial Loss ) Category Claimed Amount Legal Basis FCBA Restitution ( Held Funds ) {$3800.00} Immediate release of the Accepted Refund on Hold since XX/XX/XXXX. \nFCBA/Contract Overpayments {$780.00} Full restitution for the eight unauthorized {$53.00} installments ( XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and six in XXXX ) and related interest/fees.\n\nLoss from Fraudulent Condition {$500.00} Loss from the {$500.00} XXXX dispute which Claimant was forced to close.\n\nFraud Losses ( Other ) {$4500.00} Losses from other documented disputes and charges.\n\nB. GENERAL DAMAGES ( Emotional Distress and Pain/Suffering ) Claim Category Justification for Damages Requested Amount Unruh Civil Rights Act / FCRA Compensation for severe emotional distress, anxiety, and humiliation caused by disability discrimination, years of financial uncertainty, and the resulting credit damage.\n\n{$50000.00} C. LITIGATION EXPENSES ( Compensation for Lost Time ) Claimant seeks compensation for the specific, uncompensated time ( 90 hours ) required to resolve and compile evidence for issues created by the Bank 's negligence and willful conduct, calculated at a rate of {$21.00} per hour.\n\nActivity Log Example Estimated Hours Spent Rate Cost Claimed Dispute Filing and Follow-Up 30 hours {$21.00} {$630.00} Evidence Compilation and Review ( 1,323 pages ) 40 hours {$21.00} {$840.00} XXXX XXXX Preparation 20 hours {$21.00} {$420.00} TOTAL TIME LOSS CLAIMED 90 Hours {$21.00} {$1800.00} D. STATUTORY, INJUNCTIVE, AND PUNITIVE RELIEF Statutory Damages : For willful violations of the FCRA, FCBA ( twice the finance charges ), and a minimum of {$4000.00} per instance of discrimination under the Unruh Act.\n\nInjunctive Relief : An Order compelling the Bank to immediately delete the \" Charged Off '' status and all negative credit reporting.\n\nPolicy Change : An Order requiring the Bank to implement a permanent, secure, non-voice authentication and resolution protocol for customers with documented XXXX  XXXX. \nPunitive Damages : Punitive damages are warranted due to the Bank 's evidence of willful, oppressive, and fraudulent conduct, including the admitted \" processing error '' and the fraudulent inducement scheme. \nFees : Reimbursement of all XXXX XXXX filing fees, costs, and attorney 's fees incurred by the Claimant","date_sent_to_company":"2025-10-29T02:31:42.000Z","issue":"Closing your account","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"92231","tags":"Older American, Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"16859092","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"GOLDMAN SACHS BANK USA","date_received":"2025-10-29T01:51:23.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Company closed your account"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This <em>flawed</em> cycle is clearly illustrated by a <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> transaction from the XX/XX/<em>XXXX</em> statement : Date Action Amount Result XX/XX/<em>XXXX</em> DISPUTE CREDIT - {$160.00} Temporary credit applied. \n\nXX/XX/<em>XXXX</em> DISPUTE REVERSAL + {$160.00} Credit improperly reversed without resolution. \n\nThis pattern of mismanagement extended to critical <em>security</em> failures. In XX/XX/<em>XXXX</em>, <em>XXXX</em> XXXXXXXX <em>XXXX</em> XXXXXXXX was stolen."]},"sort":[5.862405,"16859092"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"4556344","_score":5.752318,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"AUTOVEST, L.L.C., a Michigan Limited Liability Company XXXX XXXX ( an Individual ; Does I through X ; and XXXX ), XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX, AZ XXXX. ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( an Individual ; Does I through X ; and XXXX ) XXXX. \nNevada Bar No. : XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, NV XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( PI License # XXXX ) XXXX XXXX ( an Individual ; Does I through X ; and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, MN XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX All. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, NEVADA Case No : XXXX There is NO AFFIDAVIT : The Complaint Must include an AFFIDAVIT signed by someone who alleges damage, violation, a debt, etc. something by you and not just a statute violation which is intended for government employees only. NO AFFIDAVIT = DEFECT. AFFIDAVIT MUST STATE Who, What, When, Where. Mere statement of violation o f a Code is defective. There is no Complaint, No Affidavit. These criminals attempting to commit contractual fraud, who have already committed perjury in court records and filed in court have \" Failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted. '' ASSIGNMENTS : These unknown parties named are NOT THE PROPER PARTY TO BRING A CLAIM.\n\nIf this debt is alleged, are the Complainant ( s ) /Plaintiff ( s ) the ORIGINAL PARTY?\n\nI am demanding to see, and then inspect, each assignment of the 'debt ' in the chain of assignments. \nI am demanding to see if there are any assignments missing, if so then it is= DEFECT. \nI am demanding to examine the dates of each assignment and when recorded. If not recorded or not dated = DEFECT. I state for the record that the above-named criminals and fraudsters ARE NOT the proper party to bring a claim. \nORIGINAL NOTE : Do the offenders named above have the ORIGINAL NOTE, if so provide it immediately. \nIf the above-named Offenders present mere copy of Note Only = DEFECT. If certified copy of recorded Note 2-2/3 size = DEFECT.\n\nCOURT Lacks Jurisdiction OVER Subject Matter. This is DEFECT with the Complainant ( s ) /Plaintiff ( s ) Et. All. \nCOMPLAINT has DEFECTIVE QUALIFICATIONS : Who is suing me? Who is the Real party in interest? I am demanding the qualifications FOIA with the XXXX XXXX XXXX. the XXXX  XXXX XXXX. The Bank, the County Clerk, the Judge, Officer, and any and all others who are party to this unlawful and illegal fraud/scheme and action ( s ) being brought against me. \nI am demanding to see the QUALIFICATIONS of All Parties involved. Do the attorney ( s ) on record have a REAL LICENSE, not just a bar membership so called license?\n\nI am demanding their BOND Information to be part of the record and provided per NRS 282.060, and NRS 282.070, and NRS 282.080. \nThere is no Bond ( s ) on RECORD =DEFECTIVE.\n\nThere are no OATH ( S ) on Record = DEFECTIVE.\n\nCOMPLAINANT ( S ) /PLAINTIFF ( S ) HAVE NO STANDING TO SUE : I am demanding to see the CREDENTIALS of the above OFFENDERS to determine if they are REGISTERED in the State of Nevada to do business ; If not = DEFECTIVE and they have no STANDING TO SUE. \nI am demanding to see and inspect the ENTITY ( S ) QUALIFICATIONS according to 12 U.S.C 72, 73. \nI am demanding to see and inspect that the Offenders operate and have a Main Office/or Branch in the State of Nevada. If Not = DEFECTIVE.\n\nCOURT LACKS IN PERSONAM JURISDICTION. = DEFECTIVE.\n\nCOURT LACKS SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION. = DEFECTIVE.\n\nPROCEDURAL ERRORS. Actions beyond the time allowed = DEFECTIVE.\n\nFLAWS IN THE WARRANT. Warrant/Summons MUST have wet ink signature ( not rubber stamped ), an ATTACHED AFFIDAVIT and ATTACHED COMPLAINT, by a REAL individual = DEFECTIVE. \nAFFIDAVIT DEFECT : Missing AFFIDAVIT = DEFECT. \nNO SWORN OR NOTARIZED/WITNESSED : Affidavit Not Sworn Under Penalty of Perjury = DEFECT ( It is not a real affidavit : just a \" writing '' ) SIGNATURE : Affidavit is missing a real ink signature = DEFECT. \nDEFECTIVE UNTRUE CONTENT/STATEMENTS : Affidavit fails to state who, what, when, where = DEFECT. \nAny affidavit which only claims that \" defendant ( s ) generally presumed to have violated some \" law '' or \" code '' or \" statute '' = DEFECTIVE.\n\nUntrue/False/Misleading Statements = DEFECTIVE/PERJURY.\n\nCodes only apply to agencies and government employees, and \" Persons '' not people.\n\nOATH OF OFFICE ON RECORD : No Oath = DEFECT, Office is VACANT.\n\nBOND IN PLACE ON RECORD : No Bond = DEFECTIVE, Office is Vacant.\n\nNO STANDING TO TAKE ACTIONS TAKEN.\n\nOTHER QUALIFICATIONS TO HOLD OFFICE : There are Missing QUALIFICATIONS required by law = DEFECT, OFFICE IS VACANT therefore no STANDING to take actions taken. \nAttorneys have no \" licenses '' just XXXX XXXX memberships, which is not authorized by congress.\n\nThe above-named Attorney ( s ) and Private Investigator ( s ) are in FRAUD and ANY AND ALL cases they bring are VOID. \nDENIAL AND DUE PROCESS OF RIGHTS : Court or Officers/Actors taking actions without proper warrant, proper standing, properly holding office and steamrolling over me without properly establishing JURISDICTION IN ALL AREAS WHERE JURISDICTION HAS BEEN CONTESTED. \nI EMPHATICALLY OBJECT TO ANY AND ALL ACTIONS FOR FAILURE TO PROVE ON THE RECORD THAT THE COURT HAS JURISDICTION. \nSTANDING : we have an independent obligation to assure that Standing Exists. 555 U.S. 488, 499 ( 2009 ) STANDING : At the summary judgement stage, the plaintiff ( s ) must demonstrate standing by AFFIDAVIT or Other Evidenct. Lujan 504 U.S. at 561.\n\nPRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION : 15 U.S.C. 1692 ( a ). 15 U.S.C. 1692 ( k ) In Civil\nCases, the plaintiff bears the\n\nBurden to prove each element of its claim by a preponderance of the evidence. State v. Westfall, 2008 WL 2855030 at *3 ( Del. Com. Pl. Apr. 22, 208 ) The Party on which the Greater Weight of the Evidence is Found is the side on which the preponderance of the evidence exists. Renolds v. Reynolds 237 A. 2d 708, 711 ( DEL. 1967 ). COMPLAINT : is sufficient to state a cause of action. They lack a valid verified complaint for a cause of action. They have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.\n\nNUDUM PACTUM : A promise naked of obligation on one side ; Not enforceable since contracts must generally be supported by a consideration on each side. \nNUGATORY : VOID ; Invalid ; for example, judicial proceedings in courts that lack JURISDICTION.\n\nNOVATION : Substitution of another Party for one of the Original Parties to a Contract, with consent of the remaining party. The old contract is then extinguished, and a new contract, with the same content but with at least one different Party is Created. A Novation often involves a transaction whereby the original debtor is discharged from liability to his creditor by substitution of a second debtor.\n\nNULLITY : In law, a VOID act or an act having no legal irregularity and is such a defect as renders the proceeding in which it occurs of no avail or affect whatever and incapable of being made so. A proceeding that is essentially defective or that is expressly declared to be a nullify by Statute. \nSTANDING : The legal right to challenge in a judicial forum the conduct of another. The party seeking relief has alleged a personal stake in the outcome of the Controversy.\n\nSTATE ACTION : Generally, term used to describe claims arising under the due process cluse of the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act for which a private party is seeking damages or proper remedy because the state has violated that partys civil rights.\n\nDEMURRER : Formal allegation that facts as stated in the pleadings, even if true, are not legally sufficient for the case to proceed further. It does not admit anything but tests whether the complaint is sufficient to state a cause of actionA motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be gr\nanted replaces a demurrer.\n\nNRS 282.05 Bond in force during term of office ; effect of subsequent law ; conditions. NRS 282.060 Bond for benefit of inj\nured or aggrieved person ; action on bond without assignment.\n\nNRS 282.070Defects in Bond Immaterial.\n\nNRS 282.090 Additional bond of county or township officer : showing of insufficiency ; execution and filing office vacated for failure to execute and file bond.\n\n3. The additional bond shall be executed and filed within such time as the board of county commissioners may order and if any officer shall fail to execute and file such additional bond within the time specified by the order, the office held by the officer shall become vacant.\n\nNRS 282.110 Additional bond : force and liabilities.\n\nEvery such additional bond shall be of like force and obligation upon the principal and sureties thereon and shall subject the officer and the officers sureties to the same liabilities as are prescribed respecting the original bonds of officers.\n\nNRS 282.140 Justification of surety on bo\n\nnd of county or township officer.\n\nIn all cases where official bonds are required from county or township officers, the officer whose duty it is to approve such bonds shall not accept or approve any bonds unless the sureties thereon severally justify before a person authorized to administer oaths as follows : 1. On a bond given by a county officer, that the surety is a resident and freeholder or householder within that county.\n\n2. That the surety is worth the amount for which the surety becomes surety over and above all the suretys debts and liabilities in property situated within this state which is not exempt from sale or execution.\n\nNRS 282.180 PROCEDURE. Any surety on the official bond of the State Treasurer or any county or city officer, or on the official bond of any executor or administrator, or on the bond or undertaking of any person, where, by law, a bond or undertaking is required may be released from all liability thereon accruing, from and after proper proceedings had therefore, as provided.\n\nNRS 282.200 Forfeiture of Office or Appointment upon failure to file new or additional bond : suspension of functions of office.\n\nNRS 282.210 Liability of sureties on original and new or additional bond.\n\nNRS 282.220 Amount or Penalty of new or additional bond or undertaking : How determined.\n\nNRS 282.290 Faith of State pledged ; consent of State to suit on bond ; restitution.\n\nNRS 282.305 Secretary of State to ensure compliance by state officers.\n\nNRS 282.340 Civil Liability on Bond of Officer or Employee : Action for recovery of loss ; lien ; judgement ; execution.\n\nNRS 282.350 Revocation of bond by State Board of Examiners : Grounds. \n15 U.S.C 1692 ( a ). 15 U.S.C 1692 ( k ).\n\n18 U.S. Code 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law 42 U.S. Code 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX AUTOVEST L.L.C., XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ALL Did knowingly willfully and purposefully illegally, unlawfully, and with malice and without due process of law, obtain My personal information without my knowledge and or consent then publish my personal information violating my 5th amendment right to privacy, by publishing my Social Security, former addresses, vehicles and titles owned, telephone numbers, IP address, email addresses, Family members Names, friends names, and did make this information public, as well as recorded this information on public documentation submitted to the court ( s ) and others of whom I have no knowledge. \nXXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, AUTOVEST L.L.C., XXXX XXXX, XXXX, AND XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX. All Do still have these private personal property and affects and information in their possession and as part of their personal property without my knowledge consent or permission, and have with intent, malice, purposefully, willfully, and intentionally disseminate and share this private information including but not limited to IP addresses, Social security numbers, Tax ID numbers, Employer Identification Numbers, phone numbers, residence addresses, email address and more with unknown bad actors, the public, the courts, and unknown others with they continue to hold and share this information unlawfully, illegally, and without my consent or knowledge.","date_sent_to_company":"2021-07-19T20:27:09.000Z","issue":"Took or threatened to take negative or legal action","sub_product":"Auto debt","zip_code":"89117","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"4556344","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Autovest, L.L.C.","date_received":"2021-07-19T20:03:17.000Z","state":"NV","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Threatened to sue you for very old debt"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Civil action for deprivation of rights <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> AUTOVEST L.L.C., <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> ALL Did knowingly willfully and purposefully illegally, unlawfully, and with malice and without due process of law, obtain My personal information without my knowledge and or consent then publish my personal information violating my 5th amendment right to privacy, by publishing my Social <em>Security</em>, former addresses, vehicles and titles owned, telephone numbers, IP address,"]},"sort":[5.752318,"4556344"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16827541","_score":5.230917,"_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 TransUnion 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 TransUnion 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 ), XXXX XXXX. XXXX et seq. \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 XXXX XXXX by TransUnion 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 TransUnions actions, I am now unable to secure housing despite fleeing XXXX 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 incomeat 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. TransUnions decision to reduce my score by XXXX points without a valid adverse event violates the accuracy, fairness, and reasonableness standards of the XXXX. \n\nFurther, XXXX ( a ) requires a reinvestigation of disputed information. TransUnions failure to explain the scoring basis or review the disputed XXXX entry constitutes non-compliance. \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 XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ). \n\n2. 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 XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX 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.\n\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.\n\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. TransUnions 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\n5. 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 TransUnion 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 co\nnsumers financial reputations. Under Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 ( 1970 ) and Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 ( 1976 ), 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 TransUnions 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 CFPBs Advisory Opinion on Algorithmic Credit Scoring ( XXXX  ) explicitly warns that automated systems can not shield credit entities from liability under ECOA 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\nTransUnions 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 XXXX XXXX XXXX ) : CRAs must ensure accuracy and fairness in reporting. \nXXXXXXXX XXXX. TransUnion LLC, XXXX XXXX XXXX : Establishes liability for misleading and harmful score reductions. \nXXXX v. XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) : Confirms transparency in consumer credit processes. \nXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX ) : Failure to contextualize consumer data is actionable under FCRA. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) : Disparate treatment in credit evaluation violates XXXX. \n\nXXXX. REQUESTED ACTIONS AND RELIEF I respectfully request that your offices : 1. Initiate a coordinated multi-agency investigation into TransUnions credit scoring algorithms and reporting procedures for violations of federal and state law. \nXXXX. XXXX TransUnion to provide a detailed disclosure explaining the precise data and factors used to justify this XXXX reduction. \nXXXX. Order 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, XXXX, and NJCFA standards. \nXXXX. Implement algorithmic oversight requirements ensuring transparency and fairness in credit score calculations for XXXX and low-income consumers. \nXXXX. Refer this matter to the DOJ XXXX XXXX XXXX for investigation into systemic discriminatory scoring practices. \n\nTransUnions unexplained and disproportionate XXXX XXXX XXXX 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 TransUnions credit reporting practices.\n\nRespectfully submitted,","date_sent_to_company":"2025-10-26T10:15:07.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Other personal consumer report","zip_code":"08831","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"16827541","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-10-26T10:11:17.000Z","state":"NJ","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Information is incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["LEGAL PRECEDENTS SUPPORTING <em>REMEDY</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em>, <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> ( <em>XXXX</em> ) : Inaccurate credit reporting constitutes concrete harm. \nPintos v. <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em>, <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> ) : CRAs must ensure accuracy and fairness in reporting. \nXXXXXXXX <em>XXXX</em>. TransUnion LLC, <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> : Establishes liability for misleading and harmful score reductions. \n<em>XXXX</em> v. <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em>, <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> ( <em>XXXX</em> ) : Confirms transparency in consumer credit processes."]},"sort":[5.230917,"16827541"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16828131","_score":5.2194004,"_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":["LEGAL PRECEDENTS SUPPORTING <em>REMEDY</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em>, <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> ( <em>XXXX</em> ) : Inaccurate credit reporting constitutes concrete harm. \nPintos v. <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em>, <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> ( <em>XXXX</em> Cir. <em>XXXX</em> ) : CRAs must ensure accuracy and fairness in reporting. \n<em>XXXX</em> v. Equifax XXXXXXXX <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> XXXXXXXX : Establishes liability for misleading and harmful score reductions. \n<em>XXXX</em> v. <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em>, <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> ( <em>XXXX</em> ) : Confirms transparency in consumer credit processes. \n<em>XXXX</em> v. Equifax <em>XXXX</em>."]},"sort":[5.2194004,"16828131"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":16,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":16}]}},"product":{"doc_count":16,"product":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit card","doc_count":3,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","doc_count":3}]}},{"key":"Credit card or prepaid card","doc_count":3,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","doc_count":3}]}},{"key":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":3,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Other personal consumer report","doc_count":2},{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Mortgage","doc_count":3,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Other type of mortgage","doc_count":2},{"key":"Conventional home mortgage","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Checking or savings account","doc_count":2,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Checking account","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Debt collection","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Auto debt","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Mobile or digital wallet","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"issue":{"doc_count":16,"issue":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"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":"Privacy issues","doc_count":1},{"key":"Problem with customer service","doc_count":1},{"key":"Problem with rewards from credit card","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Closing on a mortgage","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Incorrect information on your report","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Information is incorrect","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Managing an account","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Banking errors","doc_count":1},{"key":"Problem using a debit or ATM card","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement","doc_count":2}]}},{"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":"Fraud or scam","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Struggling to pay mortgage","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Took or threatened to take negative or legal action","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Threatened to sue you for very old debt","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"timely":{"doc_count":16,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":15},{"key":"No","doc_count":1}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":16,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":13},{"key":"Closed with non-monetary relief","doc_count":2},{"key":"Closed with monetary relief","doc_count":1}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":16,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":16}]}},"company":{"doc_count":16,"company":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","doc_count":3},{"key":"EQUIFAX, INC.","doc_count":2},{"key":"SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.","doc_count":2},{"key":"Autovest, L.L.C.","doc_count":1},{"key":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"CLGF Holdco 1, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"DISCOVER BANK","doc_count":1},{"key":"FinCo Services Inc DBA Current","doc_count":1},{"key":"GOLDMAN SACHS BANK USA","doc_count":1},{"key":"KEYCORP","doc_count":1},{"key":"MUFG AMERICAS HOLDINGS CORPORATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","doc_count":1}]}},"state":{"doc_count":16,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"CA","doc_count":4},{"key":"FL","doc_count":3},{"key":"NJ","doc_count":2},{"key":"CT","doc_count":1},{"key":"IL","doc_count":1},{"key":"LA","doc_count":1},{"key":"MD","doc_count":1},{"key":"NV","doc_count":1},{"key":"OR","doc_count":1},{"key":"WA","doc_count":1}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":16,"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":6},{"key":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","doc_count":2}]}},"tags":{"doc_count":16,"tags":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Older American","doc_count":2},{"key":"Older American, Servicemember","doc_count":1},{"key":"Servicemember","doc_count":1}]}}},"_meta":{"license":"CC0","last_updated":"2026-07-15T12:00:00-05:00","last_indexed":"2026-07-15T12:00:00-05:00","total_record_count":16469162,"is_data_stale":false,"has_data_issue":false,"break_points":{}}}