{"took":226,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":34,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17904933","_score":12.905566,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I am filing a complaint against Experian, Equifax, TransUnion, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and other furnishers reporting negative information on my credit file. \n\nThere are multiple FCRA violations involving inaccurate, incomplete, unverifiable, or misleading reporting. Several accounts contain incorrect dates, inconsistent balances, conflicting statuses, and derogatory information that has not been verified with proper documentation. My file also contains fraud alerts and address discrepancies that the bureaus have not properly addressed. \n\nI previously disputed these items with the credit bureaus, but they did not conduct lawful reinvestigations under FCRA Section 611. They returned verified results without supplying any documentation. They appear to rely on automated e-Oscar responses instead of independent investigations, which violates the FCRA.\n\nUnder FCRA Section 607 ( b ), the bureaus must ensure maximum possible accuracy. Multiple tradelines on my report fail this standard. Under FCRA Section 623, furnishers may not report information they can not properly verify. \n\nIMPORTANT XXXX XXXX  ISSUE : I previously filed a CFPB complaint regarding the XXXX XXXX XXXX tradeline. In that case, the CFPBs own response indicated that the account could be fraud. XXXX  an account has been flagged as possible fraud, the furnisher and the credit bureaus have a legal obligation to stop reporting it as a verified debt unless they can conclusively prove that I opened and authorized the account with a signed contract and full account documentation. \n\nDespite this warning, XXXX XXXX XXXX  continues to report this account as a charged-off revolving debt with a high past due balance. Reporting a potentially fraudulent account as a confirmed charge-off is misleading and violates the FCRAs accuracy, investigation, and verification requirements. XXXX XXXX has never provided any signed application, contract, payment records, or authentication tying this account to me. If they can not produce such documentation, the tradeline must be deleted immediately. \n\nThis applies equally to XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX, which are reporting collection accounts without providing proof of ownership, assignment, or original account records. Some debts also appear to be reported twice under different account numbers or slightly different names, which is misleading and causes double damage. \n\nRelevant case law supporting my complaint includes : XXXX XXXX TransUnion XXXX must conduct reasonable, independent reinvestigations XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX unverifiable information must be deleted XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX requires actual documentation XXXX XXXX Equifax unverifiable information can not remain Soghomonian v. Equifax mixed-file concerns require deletion The ongoing inaccurate and unverifiable reporting has caused financial harm including credit denials, higher interest rates, and obstacles in obtaining housing. \n\nI am requesting that the CFPB require : XXXX. A lawful reinvestigation under FCRA 611 for all disputed accounts. \nXXXX. That all furnishers supply full documentation, including original signed contracts, payment history, charge-off records, and proof of ownership or assignment. \nXXXX. That the XXXX XXXX XXXX  tradeline be deleted unless they produce verified proof that I opened the account, given that it was already flagged as potential fraud. \nXXXX. That XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX  be required to verify all information with documentation or have their tradelines removed. \nXXXX. That all inaccurate, inconsistent, duplicate, or unverifiable items be deleted from all three credit bureaus. \nXXXX. That mixed-file and identity-related issues be corrected immediately. \n\nI request full CFPB intervention to ensure that the bureaus and furnishers comply with FCRA Sections 602, 607 ( b ), 611, and 623.\n\nThank you for your assistance.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-12-10T00:54:31.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"285XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17904933","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-12-10T00:53:54.000Z","state":"NC","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Account information incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["In that case, the CFPBs own response indicated that the account could be <em>fraud</em>. XXXX  an account has been flagged as possible <em>fraud</em>, the furnisher and the credit bureaus have a legal obligation to stop reporting it as a verified debt unless they can conclusively prove that I opened and authorized the account with a <em>signed</em> contract and full account documentation. \n\nDespite this <em>warning</em>, XXXX XXXX XXXX  continues to report this account as a charged-off revolving debt with a high past due balance."]},"sort":[12.905566,"17904933"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17904932","_score":12.905566,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I am filing a complaint against Experian, Equifax, TransUnion, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and other furnishers reporting negative information on my credit file. \n\nThere are multiple FCRA violations involving inaccurate, incomplete, unverifiable, or misleading reporting. Several accounts contain incorrect dates, inconsistent balances, conflicting statuses, and derogatory information that has not been verified with proper documentation. My file also contains fraud alerts and address discrepancies that the bureaus have not properly addressed. \n\nI previously disputed these items with the credit bureaus, but they did not conduct lawful reinvestigations under FCRA Section 611. They returned verified results without supplying any documentation. They appear to rely on automated e-Oscar responses instead of independent investigations, which violates the FCRA.\n\nUnder FCRA Section 607 ( b ), the bureaus must ensure maximum possible accuracy. Multiple tradelines on my report fail this standard. Under FCRA Section 623, furnishers may not report information they can not properly verify. \n\nIMPORTANT XXXX XXXX  ISSUE : I previously filed a CFPB complaint regarding the XXXX XXXX XXXX tradeline. In that case, the CFPBs own response indicated that the account could be fraud. XXXX  an account has been flagged as possible fraud, the furnisher and the credit bureaus have a legal obligation to stop reporting it as a verified debt unless they can conclusively prove that I opened and authorized the account with a signed contract and full account documentation. \n\nDespite this warning, XXXX XXXX XXXX  continues to report this account as a charged-off revolving debt with a high past due balance. Reporting a potentially fraudulent account as a confirmed charge-off is misleading and violates the FCRAs accuracy, investigation, and verification requirements. XXXX XXXX has never provided any signed application, contract, payment records, or authentication tying this account to me. If they can not produce such documentation, the tradeline must be deleted immediately. \n\nThis applies equally to XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX, which are reporting collection accounts without providing proof of ownership, assignment, or original account records. Some debts also appear to be reported twice under different account numbers or slightly different names, which is misleading and causes double damage. \n\nRelevant case law supporting my complaint includes : XXXX XXXX TransUnion XXXX must conduct reasonable, independent reinvestigations XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX unverifiable information must be deleted XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX requires actual documentation XXXX XXXX Equifax unverifiable information can not remain Soghomonian v. Equifax mixed-file concerns require deletion The ongoing inaccurate and unverifiable reporting has caused financial harm including credit denials, higher interest rates, and obstacles in obtaining housing. \n\nI am requesting that the CFPB require : XXXX. A lawful reinvestigation under FCRA 611 for all disputed accounts. \nXXXX. That all furnishers supply full documentation, including original signed contracts, payment history, charge-off records, and proof of ownership or assignment. \nXXXX. That the XXXX XXXX XXXX  tradeline be deleted unless they produce verified proof that I opened the account, given that it was already flagged as potential fraud. \nXXXX. That XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX  be required to verify all information with documentation or have their tradelines removed. \nXXXX. That all inaccurate, inconsistent, duplicate, or unverifiable items be deleted from all three credit bureaus. \nXXXX. That mixed-file and identity-related issues be corrected immediately. \n\nI request full CFPB intervention to ensure that the bureaus and furnishers comply with FCRA Sections 602, 607 ( b ), 611, and 623.\n\nThank you for your assistance.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-12-10T00:54:22.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"285XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17904932","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-12-10T00:53:54.000Z","state":"NC","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Account information incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["In that case, the CFPBs own response indicated that the account could be <em>fraud</em>. XXXX  an account has been flagged as possible <em>fraud</em>, the furnisher and the credit bureaus have a legal obligation to stop reporting it as a verified debt unless they can conclusively prove that I opened and authorized the account with a <em>signed</em> contract and full account documentation. \n\nDespite this <em>warning</em>, XXXX XXXX XXXX  continues to report this account as a charged-off revolving debt with a high past due balance."]},"sort":[12.905566,"17904932"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17904929","_score":12.893874,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I am filing a complaint against Experian, Equifax, TransUnion, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and other furnishers reporting negative information on my credit file. \n\nThere are multiple FCRA violations involving inaccurate, incomplete, unverifiable, or misleading reporting. Several accounts contain incorrect dates, inconsistent balances, conflicting statuses, and derogatory information that has not been verified with proper documentation. My file also contains fraud alerts and address discrepancies that the bureaus have not properly addressed. \n\nI previously disputed these items with the credit bureaus, but they did not conduct lawful reinvestigations under FCRA Section 611. They returned verified results without supplying any documentation. They appear to rely on automated e-Oscar responses instead of independent investigations, which violates the FCRA.\n\nUnder FCRA Section 607 ( b ), the bureaus must ensure maximum possible accuracy. Multiple tradelines on my report fail this standard. Under FCRA Section 623, furnishers may not report information they can not properly verify. \n\nIMPORTANT XXXX XXXX  ISSUE : I previously filed a CFPB complaint regarding the XXXX XXXX XXXX tradeline. In that case, the CFPBs own response indicated that the account could be fraud. XXXX  an account has been flagged as possible fraud, the furnisher and the credit bureaus have a legal obligation to stop reporting it as a verified debt unless they can conclusively prove that I opened and authorized the account with a signed contract and full account documentation. \n\nDespite this warning, XXXX XXXX XXXX  continues to report this account as a charged-off revolving debt with a high past due balance. Reporting a potentially fraudulent account as a confirmed charge-off is misleading and violates the FCRAs accuracy, investigation, and verification requirements. XXXX XXXX has never provided any signed application, contract, payment records, or authentication tying this account to me. If they can not produce such documentation, the tradeline must be deleted immediately. \n\nThis applies equally to XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX, which are reporting collection accounts without providing proof of ownership, assignment, or original account records. Some debts also appear to be reported twice under different account numbers or slightly different names, which is misleading and causes double damage. \n\nRelevant case law supporting my complaint includes : XXXX XXXX TransUnion XXXX must conduct reasonable, independent reinvestigations XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX unverifiable information must be deleted XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX requires actual documentation XXXX XXXX Equifax unverifiable information can not remain Soghomonian v. Equifax mixed-file concerns require deletion The ongoing inaccurate and unverifiable reporting has caused financial harm including credit denials, higher interest rates, and obstacles in obtaining housing. \n\nI am requesting that the CFPB require : XXXX. A lawful reinvestigation under FCRA 611 for all disputed accounts. \nXXXX. That all furnishers supply full documentation, including original signed contracts, payment history, charge-off records, and proof of ownership or assignment. \nXXXX. That the XXXX XXXX XXXX  tradeline be deleted unless they produce verified proof that I opened the account, given that it was already flagged as potential fraud. \nXXXX. That XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX  be required to verify all information with documentation or have their tradelines removed. \nXXXX. That all inaccurate, inconsistent, duplicate, or unverifiable items be deleted from all three credit bureaus. \nXXXX. That mixed-file and identity-related issues be corrected immediately. \n\nI request full CFPB intervention to ensure that the bureaus and furnishers comply with FCRA Sections 602, 607 ( b ), 611, and 623.\n\nThank you for your assistance.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-12-10T00:54:25.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"285XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17904929","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-12-10T00:24:54.000Z","state":"NC","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Account information incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["In that case, the CFPBs own response indicated that the account could be <em>fraud</em>. XXXX  an account has been flagged as possible <em>fraud</em>, the furnisher and the credit bureaus have a legal obligation to stop reporting it as a verified debt unless they can conclusively prove that I opened and authorized the account with a <em>signed</em> contract and full account documentation. \n\nDespite this <em>warning</em>, XXXX XXXX XXXX  continues to report this account as a charged-off revolving debt with a high past due balance."]},"sort":[12.893874,"17904929"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"5824514","_score":11.6496525,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"YOUR COMPLAINT There is a company called XXXX XXXX XXXX that is reporting unverifiable and invalid entries into my credit report for several years without my consent and several disputes with all three credit bureaus regarding this exact complaint : I have no knowledge of this account that XXXX XXXX XXXX is reporting to the credit bureaus with two separate entries, please see the attached documents for reference. Section 609 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) outlines a consumers right to order copies of their credit report and the information that appears on it for all to see and know including creditors and consumers alike ; it is crystal clear and non compliance is illegal and unfair to the consumer. Section 609 asserts your right to a copy of all the information in your credit file Including : 1. All of the information in your consumer credit files. 2. The source of that information. 3. Each person that has accessed your credit report within the past two years ( unless it was to complete an investigation ). 4. Businesses that have made soft inquiries within the past year. 5. Credit reporting agencies are responsible for removing any disputed information that cant be verified or confirmed and the same goes for creditors that report to the credit bureaus directly or indirectly and all parties are liable for inaccurate postings or reports to the credit bureau XXXX the law is very clear. And, by law, the credit bureaus are obligated to provide a description of the dispute process if you request it in writing and to actually investigate a dispute. For example, we can use this complaint as example here : 1. A dispute of ownership or consumer complains of no knowledge of an account and requests All information in that specific credit file specific to each separate entry as desired as I have done here several times with equifax, XXXX, and XXXX, and was ignored. To date, all three credit bureaus have not, can not, and will not comply with federal law and remove these two bogus collection reports to the three credit bureaus by XXXX XXXX XXXX because they cant. There is no signed agreement, contract, application for credit or any other form signed by me agreeing to pay these two specific amounts even if they are balance amounts from a paid account I did agree too, but it does not exist. I am entitled this information from the creditor that is reporting this bogus collection and the credit bureaus including the specific services relating to every penny that I agreed to pay at any point. I am not responsible for paying a bill with an amount owed thrown together arbitrarily and the specific and unique goods or services in the collection, but most importantly, that I agreed to by signature or contract, application fir Credit, and gentleman, this is exactly what has not been done here at any level because no agreements exists : even if they did, all services or goods unique to the collection must also be provided along with the documents just discussed. Again, no summary of actions taken to validate or make the collection claim verifiable in this case has not been completed by law and all three bureaus are in contempt and XXXX XXXX XXXX has not provided the necessary documents as discussed above even after sevral complaints and disputes even though required by federal law during a dispute investigation. All three bureaus and XXXX XXXX XXXX, as requested by me several times, even after I filed fraud complaints for these two entries on my Credit report by financial data system. I also filed same with the three credit bureaus, thus far, no documentation or valid response has been delivered to me in any shape or form with regards to providing to me ALL documents requested by me, the consumer. By federal law, my dispute MUST be responded to, with, the appropriate media ; A copy of the consumers ( me ) original signed application for credit bearing the consumers own signed signature, a contract with the original entity making claim bearing the signature of the consumer, or copy of original agreement bearing the consumers signature showing an agreement to pay a specific amount representing this collection amount being reported to the credit bureaus by, in this example, XXXX XXXX XXXX, a local collection agency and this has gone on too long, several years. This is the only and last warning I am dirty directing to the three bureaus and XXXX XXXX, remove my account immediately and once and for all and I will cease moving forward to hiring attorneys and possibly a class action law suit against you all. Gentleman, I hope you embrace this one and last chance to resolve this issue. God bless. Have a blessed day. XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2022-07-29T20:45:55.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"28411","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"5824514","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2022-07-29T20:37:12.000Z","state":"NC","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Information belongs to someone else"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["local collection agency and this has gone on too long, <em>several</em> years."]},"sort":[11.6496525,"5824514"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"5821774","_score":11.6496525,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"There is a company called XXXX XXXX XXXX that is reporting unverifiable and invalid entries into my credit report for several years without my consent and several disputes with all three credit bureaus regarding this exact complaint : I have no knowledge of this account that XXXX XXXX XXXX is reporting to the credit bureaus with two separate entries, please see the attached documents for reference. \n\nSection 609 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) outlines a consumers right to order copies of their credit report and the information that appears on it for all to see and know including creditors and consumers alike ; it is crystal clear and non compliance is illegal and unfair to the consumer. \n\nSection 609 asserts your right to a copy of all the information in your credit file Including : XXXX. All of the information in your consumer credit files. \n\nXXXX. The source of that information. \n\nXXXX. Each person that has accessed your credit report within the past two years ( unless it was to complete an investigation ). \n\nXXXX. Businesses that have made soft inquiries within the past year. \n\nXXXX. \n\nCredit reporting agencies are responsible for removing any disputed information that cant be verified or confirmed and the same goes for creditors that report to the credit bureaus directly or indirectly and all parties are liable for inaccurate postings or reports to the credit bureau, the law is very clear. \n\nAnd, by law, the credit bureaus are obligated to provide a description of the dispute process if you request it in writing and to actually investigate a dispute. \n\nFor example, we can use this complaint as example here : XXXX. A dispute of ownership or consumer complains of no knowledge of an account and requests All information in that specific credit file specific to each separate entry as desired as I have done here several times with XXXX, Experian, and XXXX, and was ignored. \n\nTo date, all three credit bureaus have not, can not, and will not comply with federal law and remove these two bogus collection reports to the three credit bureaus by XXXX XXXX XXXX because they cant. \n\nThere is no signed agreement, contract, application for credit or any other form signed by me agreeing to pay these two specific amounts even if they are balance amounts from a paid account I did agree too, but it does not exist. \n\nI am entitled this information from the creditor that is reporting this bogus collection and the credit bureaus including the specific services relating to every penny that I agreed to pay at any point. \n\nI am not responsible for paying a bill with an amount owed thrown together arbitrarily and the specific and unique goods or services in the collection, but most importantly, that I agreed to by signature or contract, application fir Credit, and gentleman, this is exactly what has not been done here at any level because no agreements exists : even if they did, all services or goods unique to the collection must also be provided along with the documents just discussed. \n\nAgain, no summary of actions taken to validate or make the collection claim verifiable in this case has not been completed by law and all three bureaus are in contempt and XXXX XXXX XXXX has not provided the necessary documents as discussed above even after sevral complaints and disputes even though required by federal law during a dispute investigation. \n\nAll three bureaus and XXXX XXXX XXXX, as requested by me several times, even after I filed fraud complaints for these two entries on my Credit report by XXXX XXXX XXXX \n\nI also filed same with the three credit bureaus, thus far, no documentation or valid response has been delivered to me in any shape or form with regards to providing to me ALL documents requested by me, the consumer. \n\nBy federal law, my dispute MUST be responded to, with, the appropriate media ; A copy of the consumers ( me ) original signed application for credit bearing the consumers own signed signature, a contract with the original entity making claim bearing the signature of the consumer, or copy of original agreement bearing the consumers signature showing an agreement to pay a specific amount representing this collection amount being reported to the credit bureaus by, in this example, XXXX XXXX XXXX, a local collection agency and this has gone on too long, several years. \n\nThis is the only and last warning I am dirty directing to the three bureaus and XXXX XXXX, remove my account immediately and once and for all and I will cease moving forward to hiring attorneys and possibly a class action law suit against you all. \n\nGentleman, I hope you embrace this one and last chance to resolve this issue. \n\nGod bless. Have a blessed day. \n\nXXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2022-07-29T05:49:04.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"28411","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"5821774","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2022-07-29T01:48:57.000Z","state":"NC","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Information belongs to someone else"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["local collection agency and this has gone on too long, <em>several</em> years."]},"sort":[11.6496525,"5821774"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"5821695","_score":11.6496525,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"There is a company called XXXX XXXX XXXX that is reporting unverifiable and invalid entries into my credit report for several years without my consent and several disputes with all three credit bureaus regarding this exact complaint : I have no knowledge of this account that XXXX XXXX XXXX is reporting to the credit bureaus with two separate entries, please see the attached documents for reference. \n\nSection 609 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) outlines a consumers right to order copies of their credit report and the information that appears on it for all to see and know including creditors and consumers alike ; it is crystal clear and non compliance is illegal and unfair to the consumer. \n\nSection 609 asserts your right to a copy of all the information in your credit file Including : XXXX All of the information in your consumer credit files. \n\nXXXX. The source of that information. \n\nXXXX. Each person that has accessed your credit report within the past two years ( unless it was to complete an investigation ). \n\nXXXX. Businesses that have made soft inquiries within the past year. \n\nXXXX. \n\nCredit reporting agencies are responsible for removing any disputed information that cant be verified or confirmed and the same goes for creditors that report to the credit bureaus directly or indirectly and all parties are liable for inaccurate postings or reports to the credit bureau, the law is very clear. \n\nAnd, by law, the credit bureaus are obligated to provide a description of the dispute process if you request it in writing and to actually investigate a dispute. \n\nFor example, we can use this complaint as example here : XXXX. A dispute of ownership or consumer complains of no knowledge of an account and requests All information in that specific credit file specific to each separate entry as desired as I have done here several times with XXXX, XXXX, and transunion, and was ignored. \n\nTo date, all three credit bureaus have not, can not, and will not comply with federal law and remove these two bogus collection reports to the three credit bureaus by XXXX XXXX XXXX because they cant. \n\nThere is no signed agreement, contract, application for credit or any other form signed by me agreeing to pay these two specific amounts even if they are balance amounts from a paid account I did agree too, but it does not exist. \n\nI am entitled this information from the creditor that is reporting this bogus collection and the credit bureaus including the specific services relating to every penny that I agreed to pay at any point. \n\nI am not responsible for paying a bill with an amount owed thrown together arbitrarily and the specific and unique goods or services in the collection, but most importantly, that I agreed to by signature or contract, application fir Credit, and gentleman, this is exactly what has not been done here at any level because no agreements exists : even if they did, all services or goods unique to the collection must also be provided along with the documents just discussed. \n\nAgain, no summary of actions taken to validate or make the collection claim verifiable in this case has not been completed by law and all three bureaus are in contempt and XXXX XXXX XXXX has not provided the necessary documents as discussed above even after sevral complaints and disputes even though required by federal law during a dispute investigation. \n\nAll three bureaus and XXXX XXXX XXXX, as requested by me several times, even after I filed fraud complaints for these two entries on my Credit report by XXXX XXXX XXXX \n\nI also filed same with the three credit bureaus, thus far, no documentation or valid response has been delivered to me in any shape or form with regards to providing to me ALL documents requested by me, the consumer. \n\nBy federal law, my dispute MUST be responded to, with, the appropriate media ; A copy of the consumers ( me ) original signed application for credit bearing the consumers own signed signature, a contract with the original entity making claim bearing the signature of the consumer, or copy of original agreement bearing the consumers signature showing an agreement to pay a specific amount representing this collection amount being reported to the credit bureaus by, in this example, XXXX XXXX XXXX, a local collection agency and this has gone on too long, several years. \n\nThis is the only and last warning I am dirty directing to the three bureaus and XXXX XXXX, remove my account immediately and once and for all and I will cease moving forward to hiring attorneys and possibly a class action law suit against you all. \n\nGentleman, I hope you embrace this one and last chance to resolve this issue. \n\nGod bless. Have a blessed day. \n\nXXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2022-07-29T05:54:10.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"28411","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"5821695","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2022-07-29T01:54:06.000Z","state":"NC","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Information belongs to someone else"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["local collection agency and this has gone on too long, <em>several</em> years."]},"sort":[11.6496525,"5821695"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"5821661","_score":11.6496525,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"There is a company called financial data systems that is reporting unverifiable and invalid entries into my credit report for several years without my consent and several disputes with all three credit bureaus regarding this exact complaint : I have no knowledge of this account that Financial Data Systems is reporting to the credit bureaus with two separate entries, please see the attached documents for reference. \n\nSection 609 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) outlines a consumers right to order copies of their credit report and the information that appears on it for all to see and know including creditors and consumers alike ; it is crystal clear and non compliance is illegal and unfair to the consumer. \n\nSection 609 asserts your right to a copy of all the information in your credit file Including : 1. All of the information in your consumer credit files. \n\n2. The source of that information.\n\n3. Each person that has accessed your credit report within the past two years ( unless it was to complete an investigation ).\n\n4. Businesses that have made soft inquiries within the past year.\n\n5. \n\nCredit reporting agencies are responsible for removing any disputed information that cant be verified or confirmed and the same goes for creditors that report to the credit bureaus directly or indirectly and all parties are liable for inaccurate postings or reports to the credit bureau, the law is very clear. \n\nAnd, by law, the credit bureaus are obligated to provide a description of the dispute process if you request it in writing and to actually investigate a dispute. \n\nFor example, we can use this complaint as example here : 1. A dispute of ownership or consumer complains of no knowledge of an account and requests All information in that specific credit file specific to each separate entry as desired as I have done here several times with XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX, and was ignored. \n\nTo date, all three credit bureaus have not, can not, and will not comply with federal law and remove these two bogus collection reports to the three credit bureaus by Financial Data Systems because they cant. \n\nThere is no signed agreement, contract, application for credit or any other form signed by me agreeing to pay these two specific amounts even if they are balance amounts from a paid account I did agree too, but it does not exist. \n\nI am entitled this information from the creditor that is reporting this bogus collection and the credit bureaus including the specific services relating to every penny that I agreed to pay at any point. \n\nI am not responsible for paying a bill with an amount owed thrown together arbitrarily and the specific and unique goods or services in the collection, but most importantly, that I agreed to by signature or contract, application fir Credit, and gentleman, this is exactly what has not been done here at any level because no agreements exists : even if they did, all services or goods unique to the collection must also be provided along with the documents just discussed. \n\nAgain, no summary of actions taken to validate or make the collection claim verifiable in this case has not been completed by law and all three bureaus are in contempt and Financial Data Systems has not provided the necessary documents as discussed above even after sevral complaints and disputes even though required by federal law during a dispute investigation. \n\nAll three bureaus and financial Data systems, as requested by me several times, even after I filed fraud complaints for these two entries on my Credit report by financial data system. \n\nI also filed same with the three credit bureaus, thus far, no documentation or valid response has been delivered to me in any shape or form with regards to providing to me ALL documents requested by me, the consumer. \n\nBy federal law, my dispute MUST be responded to, with, the appropriate media ; A copy of the consumers ( me ) original signed application for credit bearing the consumers own signed signature, a contract with the original entity making claim bearing the signature of the consumer, or copy of original agreement bearing the consumers signature showing an agreement to pay a specific amount representing this collection amount being reported to the credit bureaus by, in this example, Financial Data Systems, a local collection agency and this has gone on too long, several years. \n\nThis is the only and last warning I am dirty directing to the three bureaus and XXXX XXXX, remove my account immediately and once and for all and I will cease moving forward to hiring attorneys and possibly a class action law suit against you all. \n\nGentleman, I hope you embrace this one and last chance to resolve this issue. \n\nGod bless. Have a blessed day. \n\nXXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2022-07-29T05:48:51.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"28411","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"5821661","timely":"No","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Financial Data Systems","date_received":"2022-07-29T00:33:48.000Z","state":"NC","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Information belongs to someone else"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":[", a local collection agency and this has gone on too long, <em>several</em> years."]},"sort":[11.6496525,"5821661"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"5824519","_score":11.636068,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"YOUR COMPLAINT There is a company called XXXX XXXX XXXX that is reporting unverifiable and invalid entries into my credit report for several years without my consent and several disputes with all three credit bureaus regarding this exact complaint : I have no knowledge of this account that XXXX XXXX XXXX is reporting to the credit bureaus with two separate entries, please see the attached documents for reference. Section 609 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) outlines a consumers right to order copies of their credit report and the information that appears on it for all to see and know including creditors and consumers alike ; it is crystal clear and non compliance is illegal and unfair to the consumer. Section 609 asserts your right to a copy of all the information in your credit file Including : 1. All of the information in your consumer credit files. 2. The source of that information. 3. Each person that has accessed your credit report within the past two years ( unless it was to complete an investigation ). 4. Businesses that have made soft inquiries within the past year. 5. Credit reporting agencies are responsible for removing any disputed information that cant be verified or confirmed and the same goes for creditors that report to the credit bureaus directly or indirectly and all parties are liable for inaccurate postings or reports to the credit bureau XXXX the law is very clear. And, by law, the credit bureaus are obligated to provide a description of the dispute process if you request it in writing and to actually investigate a dispute. For example, we can use this complaint as example here : 1. A dispute of ownership or consumer complains of no knowledge of an account and requests All information in that specific credit file specific to each separate entry as desired as I have done here several times with XXXX, XXXX, and transunion, and was ignored. To date, all three credit bureaus have not, can not, and will not comply with federal law and remove these two bogus collection reports to the three credit bureaus by XXXX XXXX XXXX because they cant. There is no signed agreement, contract, application for credit or any other form signed by me agreeing to pay these two specific amounts even if they are balance amounts from a paid account I did agree too, but it does not exist. I am entitled this information from the creditor that is reporting this bogus collection and the credit bureaus including the specific services relating to every penny that I agreed to pay at any point. I am not responsible for paying a bill with an amount owed thrown together arbitrarily and the specific and unique goods or services in the collection, but most importantly, that I agreed to by signature or contract, application fir Credit, and gentleman, this is exactly what has not been done here at any level because no agreements exists : even if they did, all services or goods unique to the collection must also be provided along with the documents just discussed. Again, no summary of actions taken to validate or make the collection claim verifiable in this case has not been completed by law and all three bureaus are in contempt and XXXX XXXX XXXX has not provided the necessary documents as discussed above even after sevral complaints and disputes even though required by federal law during a dispute investigation. All three bureaus and XXXX XXXX XXXX, as requested by me several times, even after I filed fraud complaints for these two entries on my Credit report by financial data system. I also filed same with the three credit bureaus, thus far, no documentation or valid response has been delivered to me in any shape or form with regards to providing to me ALL documents requested by me, the consumer. By federal law, my dispute MUST be responded to, with, the appropriate media ; A copy of the consumers ( me ) original signed application for credit bearing the consumers own signed signature, a contract with the original entity making claim bearing the signature of the consumer, or copy of original agreement bearing the consumers signature showing an agreement to pay a specific amount representing this collection amount being reported to the credit bureaus by, in this example, XXXX XXXX XXXX, a local collection agency and this has gone on too long, several years. This is the only and last warning I am dirty directing to the three bureaus and XXXX XXXX, remove my account immediately and once and for all and I will cease moving forward to hiring attorneys and possibly a class action law suit against you all. Gentleman, I hope you embrace this one and last chance to resolve this issue. XXXX bless. Have a blessed day. XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2022-07-29T20:46:21.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"28411","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"5824519","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2022-07-29T20:46:15.000Z","state":"NC","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Information belongs to someone else"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["local collection agency and this has gone on too long, <em>several</em> years."]},"sort":[11.636068,"5824519"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3066490","_score":11.589137,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"On XX/XX/XXXX I received a notice that my bank account ( held jointly with my husband ) at Citizens Bank was overdrafted. I immediately reviewed my account and found two fraudulent checks cashed on the account. The first was for {$4200.00} ( cashed XX/XX/XXXX ) and the second was for {$1800.00} ( cashed XX/XX/XXXX ). In total our bank account was debited for {$6000.00} in fraudulent transactions. I verified that I still had in my possession the legitimate checks and went immediately to the bank where they filed an investigation and had me sign an affidavit, opened a new account and put a fraud warning on the original account. \n\nWe have tried to follow up several times with Citizens Bank to determine when our account would be made whole and we have had little to no help. My husband attempted to reach out to the Loss Prevention group and no one would speak to him. We jointly spoke with a woman in the customer service department on Saturday XX/XX/XXXX that told us that our investigation would be closed on Friday, XX/XX/XXXX and the funds would be returned to our account. That woman was supposed to follow up with us to answer some additional questions regarding Citizens repeated attempts to pay a bill from our account and she never returned our calls so I then went into the branch on Thursday, XX/XX/XXXX and spoke to a local representative. He called the fraud department directly on my behalf and was also told that the investigation would be closed on Friday XX/XX/XXXX and the funds would appear in our account by Saturday XX/XX/XXXX. He even confirmed that he was allowed to relay that information to me. Those funds have still not been returned to us. I followed up this morning with the same local representative who again reached out to the fraud department for us and we are now being told that they won't return our funds to us until they recover them from the banks that cashed the fraudulent checks. My husband called again to customer service this evening and was given the same answer and told that they were allowed to keep our money from us for 8 weeks. \n\nWe live paycheck to paycheck and can not pay our bills without this money. Citizens Bank does not deny this was a fraudulent transaction. We have showed them the physical checks which are still in our possession. One of the fraudulent checks does not even have the correct bank account information on it, however they were still cashed. Citizens Bank should not be forcing us to take the penalty on this. We have been promised that the money would be back in our possession by now and they have decided that they'd rather their customer feel the pain than make us whole. Citizens Bank clearly does not value their customer service relationships. They've lied to us and led us on for weeks now.","date_sent_to_company":"2018-11-06T07:29:34.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"19006","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3066490","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CITIZENS FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.","date_received":"2018-11-06T01:44:37.000Z","state":"PA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Banking errors"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I verified that I still had in my possession the legitimate checks and went immediately to the bank where they filed an investigation and had me <em>sign</em> an affidavit, opened a new account and put a <em>fraud</em> <em>warning</em> on the original account. \n\nWe have tried to follow up <em>several</em> times with Citizens Bank to determine when our account would be made whole and we have had little to no help. My husband attempted to reach out to the Loss Prevention group and no one would speak to him."]},"sort":[11.589137,"3066490"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18836006","_score":11.061115,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"On XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX pm, I received a call from a number that appeared as XXXX XXXX. The caller said they were from the fraud department and proceeded to ask me about several attempted charges on my account. I was concerned, but wary, so I withheld any information other than to deny that any of the charges were authorized by me. On the side of caution, I disconnected from that conversation. I then called the customer service number on the back of my TJX credit card at XXXX pm to verify whether there was in fact suspicious activity on my account and to get confirmation that the earlier call was from an authorized party. I was told that yes, they were aware of suspicious activity on my account and that the outreach call was legitimate and that it was safe to cooperate. When the TJX Companies number called back, on the direction I received from the customer service rep, I reengaged. Screenshots showing the timing of the calls are attached. \n\nThat afternoon, independent of those calls, there were other signs that my identity was being attacked on several fronts at once. I was locked out of my XXXX account until I was able to get back to my laptop and produce a passkey to log back in, so I missed some warning emails/requests for information until it was too late. I discovered that someone had added my XXXX card to XXXX XXXX ; someone other than me had requested an access code to sign into my XXXX profile ; and someone was using my XXXX XXXX XXXX for fraudulent transactions and impersonating me over the phone to try to increase my credit limit. Attached is an email to my husband from that afternoon detailing some of these discoveries. \n\nAs soon as I realized that the TJX Companies calls were fraudulent, I again contacted the company by phone to close my account and initiate an investigation. I asked if there were any affidavits or documents I could submit and was told no. When my first claim was denied, I received no communication or explanation. I discovered the decision by happenstance when I logged in to check my account and saw that the provisional credit had been revoked. \n\nI called immediately to initiate a second claim. I was given a fax number to send supporting documentation, but the fax was not working for either of my attempts ( fax receipts attached. ) When I called to request an alternate number, I was told that was the only number available and to mail the documents instead, which I did on XX/XX/XXXX. There was no confirmation of receipt of my documents until XX/XX/XXXX. I received a call from the company early in the week of XX/XX/XXXX. The agent calling told me that based on the notes, she suspected that my initial claim was denied in error. She said that I could expect the decision on my second claim within XXXX days. After our conversation, I was surprised when my claim was denied a second time on the grounds that I participated in or benefited from the transactions despite the fact that I provided documentation of the proactive call I placed BEFORE the fraudulent transactions occurred as well as a recap of the attacks on my ID, the XXXX decision in my favor, etc. \n\nAs you can see in the documents attached, I have taken multiple steps to resecure my identity and accounts. I reset : my XXXX Id and recovery key as well as my XXXX and XXXX passwords. I purchased a subscription to XXXX to add a XXXX and malware detector to my phone. In addition, as a rule I keep my credit locked, but I notified the credit bureaus immediately and requested that my credit be frozen.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-01-19T19:19:56.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"152XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18836006","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL","date_received":"2026-01-19T17:21:28.000Z","state":"PA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Card was charged for something you did not purchase with the card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["That afternoon, independent of those calls, there were other <em>signs</em> that my identity was being attacked on <em>several</em> fronts at once. I was locked out of my XXXX account until I was able to get back to my laptop and produce a passkey to log back in, so I missed some <em>warning</em> emails/requests for information until it was too late."]},"sort":[11.061115,"18836006"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"10685644","_score":9.911747,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"This complaint is a continuation of a closed investigation previously filed with the CFPB - XXXX XXXX. In that complaint I stated that I was scammed by an online lawyer service on a site named XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. I tried to get legal advice for a concern I had, for a {$5.00} fee I was told it would be, for a XXXX week trial period. The answer was bogus, unhelpful, and I complained to a representative on their site both over the phone and in writing the very same day. I was offered the opportunity to have my question addressed to another online attorney, which I declined and I immediately declined the remainder of the week long trial. I was charged {$69.00}, for a full month membership, which I did not know anything about. Despite several resolution attempts on my part with them, they refused. I contacted the credit card company, Macy 's Amex, and, to this day, they have not offered a resolution, despite several hours of attempts on the phone, in online chats and requests for them to put something in writing about the {$69.00} charge I was disputing. \n\nMoving forward, this is still the case. As a matter of fact, I feel my rights have been violated. To my surprise, this year a number of charges totaling close to {$200.00} were made to my Amex card. When I go online, all I see are my Macy 's charges, not the ones made outside of this. Somehow, one day I managed to get access to this, surprised to find out that someone else was using my card on a fairly regular basis this year to pay off things that appear to be video games related. The woman I spoke to was very helpful and stayed on the phone with me for nearly 2 hours, going back as far as XX/XX/XXXX to see how long these charges were going on for, helping me get back over {$180.00} for 5 individual ongoing XXXX XXXX charges. She addressed the unresolved {$69.00} fraud dispute that was listed as such, for a year and a half. She attempted to put this complaint through again, since it was still left open. I attempted a total of 3 times again this year to get a response, only to be told that it appears this dispute is still \" pending ''. \n\nSince then, a new card was issued to me and I was instructed to keep making payments to the account ending in XXXX. I told them that I would pay for everything, barring the {$69.00} in question, and I was told that I couldn't do that, that Macy 's require ongoing payments, and even if I pay it all off, I would still be reimbursed the disputed charge. The account for XXXX has officially been paid off. Now i have a new account ending in XXXX. It does not appear to tie into the previous account, because I have had nothing but issues since receiving the new card. I had to call to activate the card because online this card was saying that it was invalid and that I had to call in to activate it. Macy 's Star Rewards and coupons that I had on my Macy 's wallet on the account XXXX did not transfer over to the XXXX account without my calling a representative. I signed up for payment due notifications, which I no longer was receiving with the new card and I am incurring late fees of {$29.00} regularly, with no warning. I have a history of either paying off my balance in full, or making larger payments than the amount due amounts, so I was shocked to find that Macy 's has frozen my card because I was late making a {$29.00} payment that was due last week for a balance due of about {$250.00}. In the past, over the years, I would either have gotten a call or, at the very least, a mailing, letting me know a payment was due. This is no longer the case. And if I hadn't been attempting to make a {$40.00} online purchase, I would not have known that my account was frozen and I was told to call in. It was then that I was told by a representative, at XXXXXXXX XXXX this morning on XX/XX/XXXX, that my account will remain frozen until I make a payment. \n\nPresently, as of XX/XX/XXXX, I still do not have access to view my XXXX statement to see what charges, outside of Macy 's online purchases, have been made. The woman would not provide me with information on anything else and reluctantly let me know that at least one late fee was applied to my account. She said if I made a payment now, she would see if she could \" grant '' me a \" courtesy removal '' of \" one '' {$29.00} late fee. She could not answer why I am no longer getting payment due notification alerts, that I signed up for several times. \n\nI received a letter dated XX/XX/XXXX that informed me the investigation on my Macy 's American Express card was completed and that the disputed charge was removed. Of course, because I am unable to access my account in full online, I can not see if the resolved dispute charge was the {$69.00} because the letter omits that information. \n\nI need assistance in getting this {$69.00} disputed charge resolved. I want to report my card being frozen for a missed payment. I want to report that I am not getting payment reminder alerts that I have signed up for online and that I am repeatedly being charged {$29.00} late fees that I have been unknowingly paying. I want an investigation done on the credit card policy that Macy 's has that I am required to make monthly payments on my account- even for the disputed charge amounts. Since trying to resolve this dispute from XX/XX/XXXX with Macy 's Amex, I've done everything the way CFPB advised. I've called to speak with supervisors, put my complaint in writing, followed up repeatedly, and continued paying balances in full without resolution. I do not know what to do next. Please advise.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-11-04T13:06:22.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"Store credit card","zip_code":"07003","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"10685644","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CITIBANK, N.A.","date_received":"2024-11-04T11:58:33.000Z","state":"NJ","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Overcharged for something you did purchase with the card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["She addressed the unresolved {$69.00} <em>fraud</em> dispute that was listed as such, for a year and a half. She attempted to put this complaint through again, since it was still left open. I attempted a total of 3 times again this year to get a response, only to be told that it <em>appears</em> this dispute is still \" pending ''. \n\nSince then, a new card was issued to me and I was instructed to keep making payments to the account ending in XXXX."]},"sort":[9.911747,"10685644"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14044358","_score":9.547153,"_source":{"product":"Vehicle loan or lease","complaint_what_happened":"To Whom It XXXX Concern, My name is XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and I am filing this complaint regarding a fraudulent auto loan transaction and unresolved issues involving Santander Consumer USA. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I entered into a financing agreement with Santander through a dealership that has since gone out of business. At the time of purchase, I traded in a XXXX worth over {$30000.00}, while the outstanding loan on that XXXX was only {$20000.00}. That left a balance of {$10000.00}, which I used toward the purchase of a XXXX XXXX from the dealer. \n\nIn addition to the {$10000.00}, the dealership also requested I bring in an additional {$7000.00} in cash in order to get approved for the financing. I complied with that request. However, once I received the contract in the mail and reviewed it, several red flags stood out most notably, an XXXX of 17 %, which I later discovered violates New York XXXX XXXX limits for auto loans. \n\nImmediately after reviewing the contract, I returned to the dealership to address the issue only to find the dealership had been shut down and was no longer in operation. I then contacted Santander Consumer USA directly to explain the situation. Their response was that the issue was solely between myself and the dealership, despite Santander being the lender listed on the contract and having approved the financing terms. \n\nI informed Santander that I would not continue making payments unless a solution was offered. For nearly XXXX years, I received no further outreach or effort to resolve the issue from Santander. Then, without warning, the vehicle which had been towed and stored in a pound was picked up by Santander. I was told the vehicle was in poor condition and was being repaired in preparation for resale. I was never contacted, nor was I given the opportunity to reclaim the vehicle or negotiate a resolution. \n\nTo add to this, within just XXXX days of purchasing the XXXX, the brakes failed and the engine began to shut down. While the car initially appeared to be in good condition, it quickly became unsafe and unreliable. Over time, I was forced to invest more than {$17000.00} of my own money into repairs just to keep the car on XXXX XXXX. I provided Santander with all supporting documentation and repair invoices yet they never responded. \n\nEvery time I call, Santander insists that the problem lies with the dealership which no longer exists and claims they bear no responsibility. This is unacceptable. Santander approved a predatory contract, ignored clear signs of fraud, and failed to assist a customer in resolving a serious financial and legal issue. \n\nThis situation has caused significant financial hardship and emotional stress. I am requesting that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau investigate this matter thoroughly, and that appropriate action be taken against Santander Consumer USA for : Approving and enforcing an auto loan with an XXXX that exceeds New York XXXX legal limits Failing to assist in resolving a transaction that involved fraud and misconduct Refusing to acknowledge or respond to over {$17000.00} in documented repair expenses Repossessing the vehicle without notice or offering the chance to reclaim or renegotiate Mishandling communication and providing no consumer support for nearly XXXX years I also later discovered that {$4500.00} of the financing was applied toward a QualityGuard+Plus warranty, which I did not knowingly authorize and never received any benefit from. \n\nIve also uploaded both contracts for review. The vehicle was originally listed at {$32000.00}, yet somehow the final total came out to over {$72000.00} which makes absolutely no sense and raises serious concerns about how the financing was structured. \n\nAll documentation, including receipts, timelines, and communications, is available upon request. I ask that this case be treated with urgency, and that steps be taken to ensure no other consumer is subjected to a similar situation. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-06-12T05:18:58.000Z","issue":"Repossession","sub_product":"Loan","zip_code":"10027","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14044358","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"SANTANDER HOLDINGS USA, INC.","date_received":"2025-06-12T04:56:07.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Company explaining amount owed"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Santander approved a predatory contract, ignored clear <em>signs</em> of <em>fraud</em>, and failed to assist a customer in resolving a serious financial and legal issue. \n\nThis situation has caused significant financial hardship and emotional stress."]},"sort":[9.547153,"14044358"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"9528946","_score":9.537915,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"A comprehensive analysis of fraud prevention suggests that by processing atypical, non-routine transaction(s), and/or by being aware of other fraudulent schemes similar to the one alleged herein and/or ignorance of obvious warning signs of fraud, it appears that several payment transfers have slipped through and enabled the commission of a fraud that resulted in my financial and XXXX  damages. The facts and details concerning the actions in question are set forth below. Description of the Incident. On or about XXXX XXXX XXXX  until XXXX XXXX XXXX I fell victim to a \nmultilayered scam operation orchestrated by yelp-us.com (the XXXX  clone), with \nthe design, development, manufacture, promoting, marketing, distribution, \nlabeling, and/or sale of illegal and outright fraudulent investment services,\" all of \nwhich aim at contributing to the goal of robbing and defrauding clients, through a \npredetermined cycle of client losses to gains. Money was transferred from my account \nvia bank wire and through an intermediary named XXXX  and XXXX  in the total amount of 60,400.00 USD utilizing BOA services. I respectfully filed a Complaint against the Bank, an internationally recognized and respected financial institution. The Complaint meticulously states several recognized and viable causes of action, inter alia, negligence, breach of implied contract and other similar claims for which I seek damages, as well as attorneys fees and costs, to the fullest extent permitted by law.\nThe allegations contained herein are predicated upon personal knowledge, and upon facts obtained through investigations or analyses conducted by qualified third parties and media reports. I strongly believe that substantive evidence in support of the allegations set forth herein will be found after an appropriate opportunity for discovery.\nI am a victim of an incredibly sophisticated investment fraud scheme, where crooks\nsystematically disguise themselves as a legitimate and trustworthy entity in order to\nillicitly exploit the vulnerabilities of unsuspecting investors and con them out of their \nmoney.\nIt is impossible not to conclude, therefore, that Bank of Americas actions and/or\ninactions, as described in this Complaint, were unfair and deceptive, in that it did nothing to protect me from falling victim to immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious fraud. Bank of America Falsely Markets its Financial Services as Safe and Secure, Omits Key Information Concerning the Enormous Risks and Threats Posed by Large-Scale Frauds COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND OTHER RELIEF DEMAND FOR RESOLUTION OF FINANCIAL DISPUTE and Scams, and Misrepresents the Scope, Magnitude, and Effectiveness of its Anti-Fraud Controls and Fraud Detection Efforts\nImportantly, however, I contend that Bank of America actively misrepresents and omits\nto disclose material facts surrounding the right of accountholders to recourse, \nreimbursement or protection in the event of a scam.  According to the advertising material of three major US banks: BofA conspicuously touts their security as a reason to use their service. Specifically, BofA writes on their website: Our policies, procedures and protections are always evolving to stay ahead of new strategies used by fraudsters. BofA goes on to say: We have multiple layers of security in place to protect clients, employees and our company. We have a sustainable cybersecurity program built on accountability and consistency. Further, BofA publicly states:Bank of America's award-winning Online Banking service incorporates industry-leading safety features that give you greater security and peace of mind as you manage your money. Taking some common-sense steps to help protect yourself adds an extra layer of protection to your online experience.(XXXX/ Specifically, XXXX writes on their website:\nXXXX XXXX  is consistently enhancing our security measures and identifying new and\nemerging threats to help keep your accounts and information secure. XXXX goes on to say: 24/7 Fraud Monitoring We help keep your money safe by monitoring your accounts and may contact you if we detect unusual activity.  If your banking behavior differs from your usual activity, we may send you an access code to confirm your identity, prevent certain types of transactions, or restrict account access (including card declines). We may require further proof of identity before we restore your online access. AXXXX XXXX XXXX, it is our top priority to protect your assets and information from\nincreasing fraud and cybercrime threats. If you believe you may have been a victim of\nfraud, speak with your XXXX XXXX team immediately.\n(XXXX); Further, XXXX  writes on their website:\nSuspicious activity We monitor your XXXX  profile to help us detect fraud as early\nas possible and We might call you if we notice a change in your online activity. It goes on to say If we can't reach you, we might place a temporary hold on your online activity and We work with some financial websites and apps to give you control of your financial information and to keep it safe and private.\nBank of America has a duty not to misrepresent the efficacy of the protective steps it \npurportedly takes to ensure the safety and security of customer funds. This entails that \nrather than propagating half-truths and heavily misleading statements in its marketing \nmaterial, Bank of America must clearly and prominently disclose: a) the entire spectrum \nof threats posed to its customers in todays complex landscape, including the scam \nreferred to herein; and b) the associated protections adopted to counter each respective threat. In the age of digital banking and artificial intelligence, accountholders reasonably and justifiably expect their entrusted financial institution to have in place robust measures and systems to prevent and detect scams efficaciously. This is not surprising, since at all times material to the various transaction(s) and interactions involved in this Complaint, Bank of America provably advertised to its customers that it took proactive steps to safeguard their financial interest. Bank of Americas dubious marketing tactics alleged herein arguably constitute deceptive acts or practices proscribed by the applicable UDAAP laws and regulations mentioned above. \nI significantly relied on Bank of America's misrepresentations and material omissions. \nSpecifically, I was completely unaware that Bank of America would flatly refuse to cover \nfraudulently induced transactions such as the ones at issue here. Had I known the truth \nabout Bank of Americas policies and business acts complained of herein, I would not \nhave placed confidence in Bank of America and would not have continued to carry my \ndeposits there.\nTo add an other financial Institution that was used in this attempt to obtain funds for me, was XXXX, where they have worked with me and were able to give me 95% of my funds. May I add how they were  more cautious in this type of scam and warned against it, than BOA. They were more sincere and did more of a due diligence than BOA.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-07-16T19:57:02.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Virtual currency","zip_code":"08807","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"9528946","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2024-07-16T18:56:30.000Z","state":"NJ","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["A comprehensive analysis of <em>fraud</em> prevention suggests that by processing atypical, non-routine transaction(s), and/or by being aware of other fraudulent schemes similar to the one alleged herein and/or ignorance of obvious <em>warning</em> <em>signs</em> of <em>fraud</em>, it <em>appears</em> that <em>several</em> payment transfers have slipped through and enabled the commission of a <em>fraud</em> that resulted in my financial and XXXX  damages. The facts and details concerning the actions in question are set forth below."],"issue":["<em>Fraud</em> or scam"]},"sort":[9.537915,"9528946"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"4630899","_score":8.641884,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"This realtor is a terrible two faced liar and a blatant thief. Please help with an investigation into this real estate transaction scam pulled upon XXXX XXXX. The Bank of America loan officer XXXX XXXX from XXXX XXXX Arkansas knew that this realtor was up to no good because this very loan officer XXXX XXXX told XXXX XXXX over the phone 48 hours before closing that realtor XXXX was violating her realtor ethics but did nothing to abate it in direct violation of XXXX XXXX fiduciary protections/interests. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is available for any and all questions that may arise from this 1st Amendment petition to submit his grievances and complaints to the proper authorities. Bank of America and the loan officer XXXX XXXX who processed, vetted, and approved this fraudulent loan, including this terrible scamming realtor from XXXX Texas who targeted XXXX XXXX with her misrepresenting contracting, mandatory disclosures, and obligations to ensure all parties involved in a transaction are fairly and fully informed and treated with honesty and integrity which was non existent in this deal. Relief is accordingly being sought by this complaint process. \n\nXXXX XXXX will now seek out the FBI and local state law enforcement to aid in reviewing this deal gone bad for felony and miscellaneous misdemeanors that may be charged. Thank you for your time. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Statement of Facts XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX. On the XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( the XXXX  XXXX ) and a Seller/Builder ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) contracted through XXXX XXXX ( the Realtor XXXX ) contract ( See Attached Contract ). The Contract will show, including by the Realtor XXXX own statements and her admissions, that this contract used in this deal was a product of omission and deceptive tactic/techique. The contract was signed by all parties involved including realtor XXXX own signature. I, the XXXX XXXX allege that the XXXX XXXX wrongfully earned {$5000.00} dollars as commission in the sale of this home. The home address is XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX. I, the XXXX XXXX, do not know what motivations or intents the Realtor XXXX possessed when she produced this Contract? How could a reasonable realtor omit HUD income guidelines from a buyer and the bank? These terms and conditions are material to purchase this home.\n\n2. Closing on the home took place with XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Texas, XXXX, on the XXXX XXXX, XXXX. XXXX XXXX possesses all the original documents of this matter at their office if this Honorable Court may need to subpoena some of these papers. XXXX XXXX, XXXX, paid all costs associated with this deal. The XXXX XXXX paid the termite and home inspection ( {$350.00} ), I believe the survey too ( {$300.00} ), the appraisal ( {$500.00} ), option money ( {$50.00} ), and earnest money ( {$1000.00} ). During this timeframe, the Covid 19 epidemic broke out into full-fledged motion over American life ( XXXX thru XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ). On the closing date, the XXXX XXXX placed an additional {$42000.00} dollars on the principal loan amount. \n\nB. Cause of Action for Breach and Possible Fraud was Discovered 3. This cause of action is based on contract omission and fraud during the loan approval process. The official date of discovery of the contract omission and mortgage fraud were on the XXXX XXXX, XXXX. On this date, I, the Veteran XXXX discovered that HUD income limitation guidelines applied to buy this home, and the terms and conditions applicable to HUD income limits were omitted from contract. HUD language never appeared in or on the contract itself ( See Attached Contract ). Realtor XXXX failed to produce a sufficient contract disclosing HUD and income limits which violated XXXX, XXXX XXXX financial interests, property interests, and civil rights in general because XXXX XXXX would not have signed this Contract if aware of what this problematic home was about. I XXXX XXXX should have been aware of everything about this home before signing this contract authored by XXXX XXXX of the HUD income limits before signing the contract. Bank of America also was denied knowledge that this home was a HUD home. Realtor ethics were never on display ( Standards of Practice for realtors ) in this real estate transaction, including the preparation of the contract.\n\n4. Honesty and integrity are words of wisdom taught in real estate ethics classes ; one has to wonder why this Realtor XXXX would imagine omitting the fact that this was a HUD home, and not placing a single word about HUD in the contract is ethically trivial? The income limits should have been expressed by words in the contract itself to give fair warning to all parties involved ( HUD Income Limits in XXXX XXXX are around {$48000.00} dollars per year ). Loan officer XXXX XXXX knew the realtor XXXX was up to no good, but never attempted to call realtor XXXX out before approval this unlawful loan. XXXX XXXX exceeds the income limits by several thousands of dollars, and wonders how realtor XXXX thought it to be proper to conceal this material information pertaining to HUD and incomes? Realtor XXXX did defraud XXXX XXXX and the bank knew what she was doing and did not try to abate it. Hence, this complaint is needed so the Inspector Generals Office and the XXXX XXXX can establish a formal investigation to discover the wire fraud, mortgage loan fraud, and contract fraud committed against XXXX XXXX. \n\n5. XXXX XXXX now is in legal jeopardy, both criminal and civil for buying this home because of this scam pulled on a first time home buyer. The relief being sought here is to be placed back in the same position XXXX XXXX before signing the contract in the first place. I, XXXX XXXX never bought a home before. After closing on the home, XXXX XXXX figured out the scam after the fact and have been trying to vindicate his civil rights ever since with no assistance from Bank of America, loan officer XXXX XXXX or realtor XXXX herself. XXXX XXXX has been stressing, both mentally and financially, ever since because this Realtor XXXX and loan officer XXXX XXXX have both refused to reply or answer Veteran Marreros calls or texts for aid and assistance to remedy the fraud committed.\n\n6. Real estate fraud occurs when one party to a real estate transaction falsely represents ( or omits ) materially relevant information from the other party during contracting and loan approval process. Real estate fraud occurs in many contexts, including during initiation of a contract which then start the bank vetting of the home all the way to the loan approval process. In both of these instances misrepresentation did occur which needs repair asap. \n\n7. XXXX  XXXX discovered the contract omission after closing on the home had taken place with Allegiance Title ( See Attached Contract and take Notice that HUD nor Income Limits language are Not in the Contract ). Soon thereafter XXXX XXXX discovered that this home was indeed a HUD home with income limits that XXXX XXXX exceeded. Realtor XXXX failed by contractual means or verbally/orally means to apprise XXXX XXXX and Bank of America that this home was subject to HUD income limitations. XXXX XXXX did not want to buy no junk HUD home, which this home turned out to be. As it stands at this moment XXXX XXXX is now in violation of HUD home guidelines. XXXX XXXX has been stressing ever since with mental anguish do to possible financial jeopardy and criminal sanctions for buying this stupid HUD home by illegal means. XXXX XXXX seeks relief by and through this complaint and action at law which is one of several means for the redress of the said damages caused by this fraud.\n\n8. The Standards of Practice for realtors teaches realtors that honesty and integrity must be on display at all times when contracting with parties. Loan officer XXXX XXXX from Bank of America did not attempt to protect XXXX XXXX financial interests. XXXX XXXX was a client to Bank of America, and this bank failed to protect XXXX XXXX  fiduciary interests. XXXX XXXX believes it was very unreasonable and very incompetent of realtor XXXX to omit the HUD language from the contract. Now, XXXX XXXX is subject to penalties because of legal jeopardy for buying this stupid HUD home. HUD and VA XXXX Loans are Federal regulated programs, and the Inspector General should faithfully investigate this debacle of a deal pushed up XXXX XXXX. This real estate transaction was worth {$200000.00} dollars. Realtor XXXX misled XXXX XXXX, misled the bank, but the bank let her do this without proper oversight. XXXX XXXX illegally earned {$5000.00} dollars commission by selling this home by whatever means she thought necessary make this unlawful sell. \n\n9. XXXX XXXX believes realtor XXXX owes a swift answer to an Inspector General investigator to find out how and why she left HUD and income limits out of the contract itself? The contract did not inform XXXX XXXX about anything, and could not make a competent decision without these terms being incorporated into and infused into the contract? If realtor XXXX sells HUD homes that are contingent to HUD income limit guidelines, then, the contract should expressed these terms and conditions in writing so can make a finding of those material facts. Texas state law says that all real estate transactions must be in writing. \n\nC. Texas Contract Law Argument in Support of XXXX XXXX Remedy for Relief 10. Realtor XXXX is a terrible sales person. Her real motivations and intents were to scam the bank and XXXX XXXX assuming that XXXX XXXX would not figure it out. This VA should contact XXXX XXXX as soon as possible after this complaint is filed with the VA so no more is lost. Realtor XXXX own statements and admissions will be attached to this complaint to the VA Home Loans Department so the VA can draw their own inferences on what to think about this contract produced by realtor XXXX. This Complaint should prove that HUD or income limits were not discussed in the contract, in which XXXX  XXXX seeks relief by reversing this loan approved by Bank of America and loan officer XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX should be eligible to recover from all financial obligations placed upon him by this mortgage and unlawfully approved loan with the appropriate damages that may be necessary. The contract used in this matter failed to use any language that would specify that it was a HUD home that had income limits to buy this home. XXXX of this outright fraud is accordingly being sought. \n\n11. XXXX  XXXX will allow the VA Home Loans Department to assess everything that has been said here, and XXXX XXXX will be standing by for any questions from any Inspector General Representative. XXXX XXXX looks forward to discovery or any other process that will be needed to obtain restitution for the damages caused and sustained up to this point. Also, the VA Home Loans Department will have to determine and assess whether the FBI or other law enforcement may be needed to assist in figuring how this fraud was allowed to occur. The VA Home Loans will have a copy of everything to review and determine if loan officer XXXX XXXX should be charged with a mortgage loan approval fraud. \nXXXX XXXX 12. XXXX XXXX is asking VA Home Loans department to award relief such as suspending any further payments to Bank of America until review and relief can be given. XXXX XXXX wants to rescind the contract. This will relieve XXXX XXXX from anymore civil sanctions, monetary losses, or criminal penalties. \nI, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing Complaint is true and correct.","date_sent_to_company":"2021-08-14T17:32:41.000Z","issue":"Applying for a mortgage or refinancing an existing mortgage","sub_product":"VA mortgage","zip_code":"44105","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"4630899","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2021-08-14T17:03:57.000Z","state":"OH","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":["HUD language never <em>appeared</em> in or on the contract itself ( See Attached Contract ). Realtor XXXX failed to produce a sufficient contract disclosing HUD and income limits which violated XXXX, XXXX XXXX financial interests, property interests, and civil rights in general because XXXX XXXX would not have <em>signed</em> this Contract if aware of what this problematic home was about."]},"sort":[8.641884,"4630899"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14079791","_score":7.9330344,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, CA XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX To : Consumer Financial Protection Bureau XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Dear CFPB, Re : RESPONSE TO J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANKS STATEMENT REGARDING CFPB COMPLAINT I write to respectfully but urgently dispute the wholly inadequate and disingenuous response submitted by JPMorgan Chase Bank , N.A . ( Chase ) concerning my CFPB complaint. Chase 's response fails to address serious issues of elder financial abuse, institutional negligence, and compliance failures under both federal guidelines and Californias Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act ( EADACPA ), which imposes heightened duties on financial institutions interacting with XXXX \nChases blanket assertion that this matter involved only customer-initiated transactions is a dangerous oversimplification of what federal regulators and California law recognize as a growing epidemic of elder financial exploitation, often masked by the victims own unwitting involvement under manipulation by bad actors. EADACPA explicitly defines such exploitation, where property is obtained from an elder for a wrongful use or with intent to defraud, as financial abuse ( XXXX ), irrespective of superficial \" authorization '' obtained through deception. \nBelow are several compelling legal and regulatory deficiencies in Chases handling of this matter, warranting immediate regulatory scrutiny : 1. Failure to Act on Clear Warning Signs in Violation of Interagency Guidance JPMorgan Chase 's assertion that these were merely \" customer-initiated transactions '' dangerously ignores the critical obligations financial institutions owe under federal guidelines and EADACPAs imposition of a heightened \" duty of care '' for businesses interacting with XXXX, especially when serving vulnerable populations such as XXXX  clients. The XXXX Interagency Guidance on Privacy Laws and Reporting Financial Abuse of Older Adults, issued jointly by the CFPB, Federal Reserve, FDIC, OCC, and other federal regulators, provides specific expectations for financial institutions when encountering signs of elder financial exploitation. This includes unusual transaction patterns, sudden changes in banking activity, or other behavior that deviates markedly from a customers established history. \nIn this case, Chase was not only presented with multiple warning signs but failed to escalate them appropriately. As a long-standing Chase customer, my banking behavior prior to Fall XXXX showed no pattern of large, repeated transfers. Suddenly, and without precedent, I began initiating high-value transfers totaling more than {$200000.00} to multiple recipients. This stark deviation from my historical activity constituted clear undue influence and wrongful use of funds under EADACPA 15610.30 and should have triggered Chases fraud detection systems or, at minimum, internal review. \nThe fact that I am a XXXXXXXX XXXX  citizen, and that these transactions were allegedly conducted with unfamiliar entities for opaque business purposes, only reinforces the necessity for elevated scrutiny under federal elder financial protection protocols and EADACPAs mandate to protect elders from precisely this form of exploitation. These red flags are precisely the scenarios envisioned by the Interagency Guidance and EADACPA, which stress that even customer-permitted transactions may constitute exploitation when the elder is manipulated by external bad actors.\n\nBy not investigating these anomalies thoroughly or escalating them to a higher level of scrutiny, Chase failed in its duty to follow regulatory best practices and breached its statutory duty of care under EADACPA. In fact, Chases failure to act on these irregularities may reflect systemic deficiencies in its internal compliance and elder protection protocols. The CFPB has emphasized that financial institutions are on the front lines of identifying and stopping fraud before irreversible harm occurs. In this instance, Chase not only failed to prevent harm, but it also enabled it through passivity and noncompliance. \nThis is not merely a matter of hindsight. The Interagency Guidance was published over a decade ago, and EADACPA has imposed clear duties on institutions since its enactment. Chase, as one of the largest banks in the country, can not credibly claim ignorance. The banks negligence created the perfect environment for the fraud to proceed unchecked. If Chase had intervened when the anomalies first emergedas their federal obligations requirethe ensuing financial devastation could have been mitigated or entirely prevented.\n\nI therefore urge the CFPB to investigate whether Chase has violated the Interagency Guidance standards, failed to uphold its fiduciary responsibilities and EADACPA duties, and whether these systemic failures represent a pattern of institutional neglect toward elder clients vulnerable to financial exploitation. Enforcement action is warranted to compel Chase to adopt necessary corrective measures and redress the harm caused by its inaction. \n\n2. Violation of California Law ( Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code 15630.1 ) The State of California has some of the strongest protections in the country against elder abuse, including financial exploitation. Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code 15630.1 ( d ) ( 1 ) provides as follows : Any mandated reporter of suspected financial abuse of an elder or dependent adult who has direct contact with the elder or dependent adult or who reviews or approves the elder or dependent adult 's financial documents, records, or transactions, in connection with providing financial services with respect to an elder or dependent adult, and who, within the scope of his or her employment or professional practice, has observed or has knowledge of an incident, that is directly related to the transaction or matter that is within that scope of employment or professional practice, that reasonably appears to be financial abuse, or who reasonably suspects that abuse, based solely on the information before him or her at the time of reviewing or approving the document, record, or transaction in the case of mandated reporters who do not have direct contact with the elder or dependent adult, shall report the known or suspected instance of financial abuse by telephone or through a confidential Internet reporting tool, as authorized pursuant to Section XXXX, immediately, or as soon as practicably possible. If reported by telephone, a written report shall be sent, or an Internet report shall be made through the confidential Internet reporting tool established in Section XXXX, within XXXX working days to the local adult protective services agency or the local law enforcement agency. \n\nUnder Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code 15630.1, financial institutions are required to report suspected financial abuse of an elder or dependent adult immediately, or as soon as practically possible, by telephone, followed by a written report within two working days. Critically, this duty to report is mandatory, not discretionary, and applies even when the elder customer denies being defrauded, as many victims of manipulation often do. Furthermore, EADACPA provides a civil cause of action against entities that \" take, secrete, appropriate, or retain property for a wrongful use '' ( 15610.30 ) or fail in their duty to prevent such exploitation. Chases failure to report and intervene exposed it to liability under both statutes.\n\nIn this case, Chase Bank has already acknowledged that at least one branch-level employee questioned me about the nature of the high-value transactions. The bank alleges that I confirmed the transactions were business-related. However, the statute does not require certainty or confirmation of abuse to mandate reporting. It only requires reasonable suspicion. The law specifically anticipates scenarios where an elder may not recognizeor may even denythat they are being exploited, due to manipulation, shame, or lack of full understanding. EADACPA expressly recognizes that financial abuse occurs when an elder is deceived into \" voluntarily '' surrendering assets through undue influence, fraud, or coercion ( 15610.30 ( a ) ( 3 ) ).\n\nChase failed to act when it mattered most. If their employee had enough concern to question me, then they had more than enough basis to initiate a mandatory report under California law. Instead, Chase did not report the activity until well after my funds were depleted, and only after it became too late to protect me. This dereliction of duty directly enabled the continuation of fraudulent withdrawals and significantly contributed to my financial devastation. This failure constitutes per se negligence under EADACPA, potentially entitling me to compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys fees, and court costs ( XXXX  ). \nMoreover, Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code 15630.1 ( c ) explicitly mandates training for bank employees to recognize warning signs of XXXX abuse and to act on them without hesitation. The failure by Chase to recognize the red flags, despite a clear deviation from my account history, repeated high-value transfers, and XXXX status, reflects a systemic breakdown in their compliance and training programs. Chases late reporting, after the damage was done, further confirms the banks disregard for its statutory duties and its breach of EADACPAs duty of care. \nIt is especially troubling that this failure occurred in multiple branches and over a sustained period. This indicates a lack of internal checks, oversight, or escalation protocolseach of which is expected under Californias regulatory framework. When one branch fails to act, it may be negligence. When multiple locations enable suspicious conduct repeatedly over months, it suggests institutional noncompliance warranting punitive damages under EADACPA XXXX for recklessness, oppression, fraud, or malice. \nFurthermore, Chases failure to report extended to a separate XX/XX/XXXX incident where I was defrauded through a XXXX business loan scam. In my attempt to meet the scammers demands, I paid approximately {$5000.00} to fraudulent agents and made XXXX payments via Chase to XXXX XXXX ( {$1300.00} on XX/XX/XXXX, {$1700.00} on XX/XX/XXXX, {$250.00} on XX/XX/XXXX, and {$1000.00} on XX/XX/XXXX ). \nI reported this fraud in person to a Chase official named XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, CA ) branch on XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX, XXXX. No action was taken, and XXXX was not notified as required. In a XX/XX/XXXX call, Chase confirmed these visits and my contact with XXXX but admitted no notes were taken. \nEven worse, Chase delayed reporting to XXXX for months, only acting after I filed this CFPB complaint. XXXX agent XXXX XXXX received a referral ( bank unnamed ) on XX/XX/XXXX, and visited my home on XX/XX/XXXX, weeks after my final fraudulent transfer ( XX/XX/XXXX ) and only after regulatory pressure. This pattern of belated reporting underscores institutional disregard for statutory duties. \nChases failure to act upon observable patterns of exploitation violates not only state law but also undermines the very intent of elder financial protection policies. The consequence of this failure has left me financially destitute, emotionally distressed, and physically vulnerable. \n\nXXXX. Failure to Follow Its Own Risk Controls and Duty of Care JPMorgan Chase Banks handling of the transactions at issue reflects a deep institutional failure to uphold its fiduciary duty, adhere to its own internal risk controls, and apply industry-standard safeguards for elder clients in violation of EADACPAs imposition of a duty of care ( XXXX ). As one of the largest financial institutions in the United States, Chase has long touted its robust fraud detection systems, Know Your Customer ( KYC ) protocols, and customer-first policies. However, none of these safeguards were applied meaningfully in my case. \nAs a Chase customer for many years, my account had established, predictable activity : modest, consistent monthly balances and no history of high-volume business-to-business wire transfers. Beginning in Fall XXXX, I initiated large, repeated transfers to unfamiliar recipients. These transactions totaled over {$200000.00} and represented a XXXX departure from my historical activity. Chases internal fraud systems, which are designed to flag anomalous behavior, failed to detect or act on these changes. This failure constitutes a breach of its duty of care to a vulnerable elder under XXXX XXXX. \nBanking institutions are not passive conduits of customer will. They have both a legal and operational obligation to assess the legitimacy of unusual financial activity, particularly when the customer is XXXX. This is not an abstract or novel standard. It is enshrined in federal anti-fraud frameworks and industry best practices. Chase had both the technology and the duty to identify the fraud scheme in progress. Its failure to do so demonstrates a systemic breakdown or a negligent disregard for customer protection. \nThe duty of care is heightened when the bank is dealing with an elderly, long-term account holder showing signs of financial irregularity. Even according to Chases own XXXX Account XXXX ( XXXX ), which encourages customers to review statements for irregular activity, the bank still retains the right and responsibility to block, investigate, or flag suspicious transactions. Chase did none of those things. Its inaction facilitated the \" taking '' and \" wrongful use '' of my property, meeting XXXX 's definition of financial abuse ( XXXX ). \nChases excuse that the transactions were customer-initiated ignores the regulatory and ethical requirement to investigate when multiple high-risk markers are triggered. This includes ( XXXX ) account holder age, ( XXXX ) sudden transaction volume spikes, ( XXXX ) recipient accounts newly added, ( XXXX ) opaque business purposes, and ( XXXX ) known fraud patterns such as pig butchering scams. Had any of these markers alone been investigated, the fraud might have been interrupted. In combination, they formed an unmistakable profile of financial exploitation requiring intervention under XXXX. \nAdditionally, no XXXX ever required additional verification or approval, despite the fact that these transactions were not typical for my account and would have represented high-risk events under even the most lenient fraud detection models. This suggests that Chase either failed to employ such models or chose not to act on the information they produced. \nThe impact of this failure is not theoretical, it is quantifiable, deeply personal, and devastating. I have lost my savings, my credit is in ruins, and I am now facing mortgage pressure and potential bankruptcy. Chases indifference in the face of its own data, policy obligations, and duty of care can not be excused and warrants the full range of remedies available under XXXX, including restitution, compensatory damages, and attorneys fees. \nThe CFPB should treat this matter as a demonstration of Chases systemic noncompliance and evaluate whether their risk control protocols meet federal expectations for fraud mitigation, especially when elder exploitation is at stake. A failure to investigate and act must result in institutional accountability. \n\nXXXX. Obfuscating Liability Through XXXX Chase Banks core defense that the fraudulent transactions in question were customer-initiated and therefore not subject to reimbursement grossly misrepresents the legal and regulatory landscape concerning authorized fraud and elder financial exploitation. This defense reflects not only a misapplication of fraud classifications but also an intentional obfuscation of Chases institutional responsibilities in preventing scam-induced transactions, especially when the customer is elderly and vulnerable. \nThe banks position relies on a narrow, self-serving interpretation of what constitutes fraud. While it is true that under Regulation XXXX of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, unauthorized transactions typically trigger reimbursement requirements, this case does not fall cleanly into that framework. Instead, it concerns a scenario the CFPB has extensively documented and warned the public about : scams involving social engineering and psychological manipulation that lead victims to \" authorize '' their own financial ruin. These are widely recognized as authorized fraud cases, where the transaction is technically permitted by the account holder, but only because the customer has been deceived, coerced, or manipulated. \nIn this situation, I was targeted through a pig butchering scheme that gradually manipulated me into believing I was entering a legitimate business venture. Like thousands of similarly situated scam victims, I was coaxed into making large transfers to what I believed were authentic business recipients. The banks involved, including Chase, facilitated these transactions without adequate internal scrutiny or protective friction, even when my transactional activity drastically diverged from my prior account history. \nImportantly, Chases claim that these were voluntary transactions and thus beyond its responsibility is not supported by federal guidance on elder financial abuse. The CFPB, XXXX, and the FTC all recognize that elders are uniquely susceptible to XXXX  exploitation and often do not recognize fraud until it is too late. It is precisely for this reason that financial institutions are held to higher standards of vigilance and intervention when sudden, anomalous activity arises in an elder customers account. \nFurthermore, Chases own fraud protection policies in other jurisdictions undermine its defense here. As I previously noted, Chase XXXX offers fraud protection for authorized fraud transactions, recognizing the ethical and reputational harm in allowing vulnerable customers to be financially destroyed while the bank takes no responsibility. That Chase XXXX disclaims this obligation, despite operating under the same brand, ethos, and customer trust, highlights a troubling inconsistency that must be addressed by U.S. regulators. \nChase can not escape liability by hiding behind contract language and technical definitions of authorization. When its fraud detection systems fail, when its staff observe but do not act upon irregularities, and when its customer is an elderly individual experiencing manipulation, the bank has crossed from neutrality into complicity. These are not merely business decisionsthey are failures of care, compliance, and conscience. \nThe CFPB should treat this definitional shell game for what it is : a regulatory avoidance strategy. It must be rejected. Chase must not be allowed to benefit from its refusal to modernize its fraud protections in light of emerging scam typologies, especially those that exploit XXXX \n\n5. Institutional Liability for Enabling Fraud Infrastructure JPMorgan Chase Banks role in this case goes beyond passive negligence, it actively enabled the infrastructure that allowed this fraud scheme to succeed. By approving and maintaining multiple recipient business accounts that received illicit transfers from my account, Chase facilitated the operation of a pig butchering scam targeting a vulnerable XXXX The presence of this infrastructure within the banks own system exposes it to institutional liability for allowing its platform to be used in the commission of financial elder abuse. \nPig butchering scams often rely on a network of recipient accounts created for the sole purpose of laundering funds extracted from victims. These accounts are typically opened under legitimate-sounding business names, but their true purpose is fraudulent. In my case, I was instructed to transfer funds from my Chase business account to other Chase business accounts allegedly belonging to parties involved in an herbal product supply agreement. I later learned these accounts were set up under false pretenses and were used to funnel money to international actors as part of a fraud ring. Chases facilitation of these transfers constitutes \" aiding and abetting '' the financial abuse of an elder under EADACPA principles. \nAt no point did Chase question the legitimacy of these recipient accounts, despite the fact that they were receiving large and sudden transfers from a XXXX customer with no prior history of high-volume transactions. It is the responsibility of financial institutions to monitor not only outgoing transactions but also inbound flows to newly created accounts, especially when they fit well-documented fraud profiles. This failure reflects a reckless disregard for its duty to prevent exploitation under EADACPA XXXX\n\nMoreover, many of the recipient accounts receiving these transfers were opened at different Chase branches across the U.S., suggesting a broader pattern that should have triggered internal fraud alerts. This activity is precisely what modern anti-money laundering ( AML ) systems are designed to detect, yet Chase failed to act. If one Chase branch is enabling high-volume deposits into a newly opened business account, and another Chase branch is facilitating suspicious outgoing transfers to it from an elderly customer, the banks systems should correlate these events and escalate for review. That did not happen here. This systemic failure makes Chase liable for permitting the financial abuse to occur. \nChases failure to flag and investigate the destination accounts makes it more than a bystanderit became a conduit. As courts have increasingly recognized, when banks provide the financial rails used by fraudsters and fail to take preventive action despite obvious red flags, they may be liable for aiding and abetting or negligently enabling fraud. This is particularly true when the victim is part of a protected class, such as an elderly consumer under California law.\n\nAdditionally, the lack of any meaningful Know Your Customer ( KYC ) due diligence in approving these accounts further supports institutional liability. Chase has never explained what steps, if any, it took to verify the legitimacy of the recipient entities or to track the outflow and inflow of substantial sums across its business customer network. This lack of diligence directly facilitated the \" taking '' and \" wrongful use '' of my property, satisfying EADACPAs definition of financial abuse ( XXXX ). \nI respectfully request that the CFPB investigate Chases onboarding, monitoring, and internal control procedures for business accounts involved in this and similar elder-targeting scams. If one victim like me can be exploited through Chases network of accounts, there are likely others. This matter demands systemic review, and Chase must be held accountable for enabling financial exploitation through its own commercial platform.\n\n6. Ongoing Harm, Distress, and Financial Ruin What distinguishes XXXX financial abuse from other forms of fraud is not just the monetary lossit is the cascading and often permanent damage to the victims emotional, physical, and financial well-being. In my case, the unchecked and unchallenged fraud facilitated by JPMorgan Chase Bank has left me not only destitute but also psychologically traumatized, on the brink of bankruptcy, and living with the grim consequences of a breach of trust by the very institution tasked with safeguarding my assets. EADACPA exists precisely to address such devastating outcomes and provides for comprehensive remedies, including compensatory damages for economic losses and emotional distress, punitive damages for reckless conduct, attorneys fees, and costs ( XXXX  ). \nI am a XXXXXXXX XXXX  who lived a financially modest but stable life. I was targeted not just because I had money, but because I was perceived, accurately, as someone vulnerable to manipulation. The fraud scheme I fell victim to was not an isolated incident ; it was part of a larger pattern of what experts now classify as pig butchering scams. These scams deliberately isolate victims, use social and professional deception, and create the illusion of opportunity. They are especially dangerous to older adults, who often trust authority and may lack the digital literacy to identify spoofed communications or fake platforms.\n\nAs a direct result of this fraud, enabled by Chases inaction, I have lost over {$200000.00}. The financial devastation is only the beginning. I now face mounting debt obligations, including mortgage pressures that threaten my housing stability. My credit rating has been irreparably harmed, impacting my ability to finance essentials or obtain emergency resources. The emotional fallout has been no less severe. The shame, XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX stemming from this exploitation have become part of my daily reality. Compounding this, Chase Bank has closed my account due to fraud, making it impossible to independently assess the full transaction history or quantify the total losses. \nAccording to studies cited in the Interagency Guidance on XXXX  abuse, victims of financial exploitation are three times more likely to die prematurely than similarly situated individuals. This is not an exaggeration, it is a warning rooted in public health data.\n\nWorse still, Chase has offered no meaningful recourse. The bank 's response not only denied reimbursement but also ignored the evident trauma I have endured. Its refusal to acknowledge its role in facilitating the abuse and in failing to act when warning signs were visible, has added to my distress. Instead of being treated as a client in crisis, I was treated as a procedural burden. \nI have also experienced a lack of empathy and urgency from Chase 's internal systems. It was only after the damage was complete that Chase filed a delayed report to Adult Protective Services, resulting in a home visit from XXXX  last week. But that action came far too late to prevent my financial ruin. This delay underscores the very problem I have outlined throughout this complaint : Chase had opportunities to act earlier but chose not to.\n\nThe CFPB has repeatedly acknowledged the seriousness of XXXX  financial abuse and its societal toll. This case is a vivid example of the damage that results when a major banks duty of care collapses under the weight of procedural shortcuts, profit priorities, or regulatory complacency. I implore the Bureau not to treat this as an individual complaint but as a test case for broader enforcement. If this can happen to me, it can happen to countless others. \nOnly meaningful regulatory pressure, penalties, and structural reforms will restore trust, and only full restitution will begin to repair the damage I have suffered. In consideration of the foregoing, I respectfully urge the CFPB to exercise its regulatory oversight and : a. Formally investigate Chase Banks conduct in this matter for possible violations of elder protection laws and failure to adhere to CFPB-endorsed Interagency Guidelines ; b. Assess whether Chase violated the spirit or letter of Californias mandatory elder abuse reporting law, particularly Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code 15630.1 ; c. Mandate that Chase reimburse the fraudulently induced transfers, given its admitted failure to report suspected abuse and its violation of the duty of care ; d. Mandate that Chase reopen my bank account and grant me unfettered access to my account ; and e. Issue supervisory guidance or public enforcement actions aimed at improving institutional response to pig butchering and similar elder-targeted scams. \n\n\nRespectfully, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX. \nXXXX XXXX, CA XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-06-14T19:59:19.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Domestic (US) money transfer","zip_code":"92026","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14079791","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","date_received":"2025-06-14T19:48:39.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Below are <em>several</em> compelling legal and regulatory deficiencies in Chases handling of this matter, warranting immediate regulatory scrutiny : 1."],"issue":["<em>Fraud</em> or scam"]},"sort":[7.9330344,"14079791"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16783219","_score":7.922892,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX billed my Sears Mastercard credit card {$500.00} for airline tickets on XX/XX/XXXX. I did not make the charge ; I did not authorize the charge. I have never done any business with XXXX. This is a letter that I sent to Mastercard on XXXX XXXX XXXX regarding the ongoing lack of corrective action by Mastercard : \" Attempting to resolve a fraudulent charge with Citi XXXX card caused the entire XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX to become an ongoing period of torment for me. Commencing with my first call to customer service back in XX/XX/XXXX and continuing through the following months, I have been plagued by automated phone calls, emails, text messages, and an occasional form letter telling me that I have an overdue bill payment and that the contact is being made in an attempt to collect a debt. NO ONE from Citi XXXX card has ever contacted me to explain how my credit card number was apparently fraudulently used to pay for airline tickets. My use of the term apparently is based upon what XXXX and Citi XXXX card have said as I have not seen anything that actually documents that my credit card number was used for the charges that I have been billed for or specifically where those charges were made. The destination of the fraudulently charged tickets was the XXXX XXXX, but where were the tickets purchased and who purchased them? \nRepeated written and called-in requests to speak to someone concerning the ongoing harassment and billing have been in vain. I was told that I had not responded to a message from XXXX XXXX that contained a statement for me to sign denying that I made the charge. That statement was sent by regular USPS and took weeks to get to me, arriving several days before the return by date. I sent the signed document to XXXX XXXX by Certified Mail and I have the return receipt as well as the USPS electronic tracking record for both that document with enclosures and a subsequent set of documents that I also sent to XXXX XXXX. The alleged debt started off as a fraudulent charge on my credit card that I reported back at the end of XXXX when I noticed a charge from XXXX in XXXX XXXX XXXX, UT that appeared on my online account before I had received a monthly statement. A second charge subsequently appeared. Then, a confusing series of additions and subtractions from my account were posted online. \nI initially called the number on the back of my then-Sears Mastercard to report the fraudulent charge. The person I spoke with had a very thick accent and there was a great of noise in the background wherever he was. I kept repeating that I could not understand him. The only thing that I could decipher was that the person said that he would report that my credit card was lost or stolen. I said that my card was not lost or stolen. He told me that he would report that it was stolen and I would get a new card. Thats when the Citi XXXX card ending in XXXX came into the maze. \nIt seems that there is no way for a victimized customer to get a phone number or an email address that leads to an identifiable person within the CitiBank organization. The best that can be hoped for is a first name that might be a pseudonym and there is no number where the same person can be reached again. When the harassing calls to submit payment come in, they are automated and are actually a good example of entrapment as theres no actual person available to speak to, just options to pay ; no options to dispute the charge. \nIn the law enforcement world, when there is a suspicion of an illegal act, such as stolen identity or a fraudulent billing, the investigation would concentrate on the incident and the perpetrator and would not concentrate on badgering or demeaning the victim ( s ) rather than identifying the perpetrator ( s ). Establishing when and where the original charges were made and the name of the person who made those charges would have been a proper opening of the investigation as would have been ascertaining from XXXX just exactly how the charges were made ; whether electronically or in person. How was the person who made the charges identified at that time? \nXXXX billed my credit card deliberately or mistakenly. Im sure that the charge was made during the commission of a criminal act. Someone, whether it was the person who made the charges or an accomplice, apparently took one or more flights to or from the XXXX XXXX on XXXX airline. It wasnt me. Citi XXXX card should be protecting me, their customer, rather than demanding that I pay for a charge that I didnt make with XXXX XXXX \nPlease check my past use of the now-Citi XXXX XXXX, previously a Sears Mastercard , that I had since XXXX You will note that it was never used to pay for a flight. You will see that it was typically used to pay for antiques that were bought at auctions and the charges were usually paid off monthly. \nThe fact that the fraudulently acquired airline tickets were used for travel to the XXXX XXXX and that other persons besides me were also fraudulently charged for tickets to the XXXX XXXX via XXXX strongly suggests that there is more than just credit card fraud taking place. The person that informed me of an identical situation involving fraudulent use of a MasterCard at XXXX for tickets to the XXXX XXXX had a XXXX MasterCard issued by XXXX XXXXAt some point, the original two ( or more ) charged tickets were temporarily taken off of my account. Then one reappeared. After spending a lot of time making phone calls trying to find out why there was a new charge on my account, a lady named XXXX told me that I had been credited for the two fraudulent charges, but then another charge came up in either XXXX or XXXX. She said that I was being billed again because I had not reported that charge as being fraudulent. I attempted to explain that I didnt report that charge because it was the same number as one of the previous charges that was supposedly being investigated, and, additionally, no one had notified me that there was another charge. It was a rebilling. If there was in fact a second charge ( or third, fourth or whatever charge as none of this has been logical ), why havent I gotten any of the fraud alerts that I used to get when I was attempting to use the card for my own purchases? \nIt seems as if something either got diverted or overlooked during the merger/sale of Sears Mastercard tXXXX Citi XXXX XXXX. After having the Sears card since XXXX, I had gotten used to quality service and there was real customer service. That all went downhill in XXXX. \nLast week, I called several numbers listed online for Citi XXXX card and got transferred to other persons, some of whom spoke clearly, two did not. A lady named XXXX told me that I had to report the latest fraudulent charge in order for it to be investigated. She transferred me to someone that I could not understand who then transferred me to a gentleman named XXXX who was supposedly in the fraud department. No one gave me any of the phone numbers for the transferred calls, not that it would have made any difference as its impossible to do any follow-up when dealing through the phone maze and XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX why are there two different names? Why are there two different operations with different XXXX XXXX Why are there two account/case numbers ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) for the same incident? Are different cases open for the old XXXX card and the new Citi XXXX card? I havent ever used the XXXX Citi XXXX card ; the charge on it was a rebill for the disputed charge ( s ) from the Sears Mastercard. ( This is all unnecessarily confusing, isnt it? Try being on my side of the incident. ) I have sent documents to both XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX and never received a follow-up response. Is the actual fraud unit different from those units? Do your departments communicate with each other? \nXXXX from the fraud section told me that the investigation was reopened now that I had reported it ( again ) and that the dunning calls would stop. The next day, the phone calls for payment ramped up. I called to opt out of getting the dunning calls for this matter, because I had not charged any airline tickets, and because the last listed ticket reference number was the same as the original number from XXXX. That number is XXXX XXXX. \nWhoever I spoke to relevant to opting out of the fraud calls said that if I didnt accept the dunning calls, no one could call me to inform me of the progress of the investigation or the settlement. She added that all communication would be henceforth be done by letter. I said that no one had yet called me with a progress report or answered any of my written questions either in writing or by phone and that I expected that opting out of phone calls would not affect that. She said that CitiBank had no way of calling me without using the automated system that I had just opted out of. (! ) That explanation seems to project the scent of something normally associated with bulls and pastures. Citi XXXX employees havent called over the last three months except to seek payment, never with updates ; how would things change? \nThey did change - now Im getting dunning emails and the latest one had this address ( used in the letter heading above ) to write to and thats what this is all about. Past experience indicates that expecting an answer is futile, but I am again attempting to seek a proper resolution of this matter. Instead of CitiBank warning that calls may be recorded, customers should be cautioned to record the calls in order to document getting the run around. '' Mastercard keeps billing me for a fraudulent charge. The person named XXXX mentioned in the letter thought the whole thing was pretty funny as he laughed several times, but he apparently didn't do any follow up to correct the fraudulent charge. \n\nMastercard 's customer service is useless to the customer, but benefits the criminal who uses the Mastercard fraudulently.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-04T14:43:50.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"062XX","tags":"Older American, Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"16783219","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CITIBANK, N.A.","date_received":"2025-10-23T13:49:35.000Z","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":["I was told that I had not responded to a message from XXXX XXXX that contained a statement for me to <em>sign</em> denying that I made the charge. That statement was sent by regular USPS and took weeks to get to me, arriving <em>several</em> days before the return by date. I sent the <em>signed</em> document to XXXX XXXX by Certified Mail and I have the return receipt as well as the USPS electronic tracking record for both that document with enclosures and a subsequent set of documents that I also sent to XXXX XXXX."]},"sort":[7.922892,"16783219"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3249226","_score":7.673163,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"As a 30+ year USAA member, military veteran, and XXXX XXXX   XXXX with US Fortune 500 company experience, I have seen a rapid decline in corporate integrity and the quality of customer service over the last few years with USAA . There has been an increasingly more regular mistreatment of its members, which has been confirmed through many discussions with several other veterans and active duty service members. \n\nI and many other veterans have begun the process of shutting down all of our USAA accounts and business relationships over the past year, with the ultimate goal of a complete exit from the company. Those of us with children who have decided to also serve in the military are strongly advising them to avoid USAA and to tell all of their peers in the military to do the same. \n\nThis latest episode with USAA is by far, the most disgraceful and highly unprofessional handling of a case I have seen to date, and has promoted us to pursue legal options and explore recovery of damages. \n\n1. USAA, through an obviously incompetent security screening process, allowed an identity thief to use my mothers social security number to open a fraudulent checking account. This is just the latest in a long series of financial security issues I have experienced with USAA over the past five years, each of which cost me tens of hours of my time and the time of many other businesses to correct. My mother is not even a USAA member. \n\n2. This security breach which was allowed by USAA has affected my ability to open joint banking accounts with my mother and other family members. An account I attempted to open was shut down ( document attached ). \n\n3. USAA has slandered and defamed our character by falsely reporting information about my mothers financial history. USAA did this by knowing and admitting that the banking activity background check service called XXXX XXXX publishes data which is very vague and ambiguous about checking account irregularities. My mother is a victim of identity theft, ( caused by USAAs incompetence ) however, USAA sent information to XXXX XXXX which allowed them to re-characterize her activity as criminal. USAA had knowledge that XXXX XXXX would do this, and allowed it to happen. \n\n4. The failures described above could have been easily handled in an acceptable manner by USAA, but instead, our entire family has been put through a living XXXX the past three weeks, since USAA has refused to correct the situation. \n\n5. After my parents and I being shuffled through many different customer service representatives, many unreturned phone calls, and being handed off from one department to the next, to the next, we finally ended up in the CEOs resolution center, which just chose to shuffle us off to another office to handle the problem, resulting in another extended delay as USAA reviews our request. We have collectively spent a total of about 6 hours on the phone with USAA trying to solve this. \n\n6. We have simply requested a letter from USAA proving that my mother is an identity theft victim, and not a criminal, and a copy of the document which was sent from USAA to XXXX XXXX. \n\n7. Meanwhile, we have been told by XXXX XXXX at extension XXXX in the fraud/security department, that although he and others at USAA have stated my mother has done nothing wrong, and is a victim, USAA did everything correctly and they will not be supplying us documentation to exonerate my mother and to prove that she is not an identity theft criminal. XXXX basically told us it is not USAAs problem, and dumped it in our lap to figure out. \n\nWe will be pursuing ( vs. exploring ) formal legal action, and will follow up with outreach and a warning to many veterans organizations if USAA does not immediately take responsibility for their failure and do the right thing by supplying the requested documents. A formal complaint with the Federal Consumer Finance Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) is also pending. \n\nNo one should ever be treated the way we have been treated. \n\nI strongly urge my fellow veterans who may be reading this to immediately spread the word as fast as possible and to inundate USAA with CFPB complaints for all qualifying financial irregularities they have experienced with USAA. Maybe there is some hope USAA will take notice and return to the company it once was, proudly serving veterans, active duty service members, and their families. Sadly, it appears this is no longer true. \n\n*** request *** Immediately supply two documents : 1. A letter signed by XXXX XXXX ( full name requested on the letter ), Manager of the XXXX XXXX XXXX, on USAA letterhead, formally stating that my mother is a victim of identity theft with USAA, and is not guilty of any wrongdoing. \n\n2. A copy of the communication which was sent from USAA to the XXXX XXXX company regarding my mothers status.","date_sent_to_company":"2019-05-21T04:58:17.000Z","issue":"Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"34293","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3249226","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2019-05-21T04:37:29.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Sadly, it <em>appears</em> this is no longer true. \n\n*** request *** Immediately supply two documents : 1. A letter <em>signed</em> by XXXX XXXX ( full name requested on the letter ), Manager of the XXXX XXXX XXXX, on USAA letterhead, formally stating that my mother is a victim of identity theft with USAA, and is not guilty of any wrongdoing. \n\n2. A copy of the communication which was sent from USAA to the XXXX XXXX company regarding my mothers status."]},"sort":[7.673163,"3249226"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"20162775","_score":7.294824,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"I am submitting this new complaint against SoFi Bank. They are not taking my complaint seriously and provide ambiguous replies. They acknowledge issuing a stop payment but ignore the changing merchant identity to bypass. They note credits were issued from same merchants for smallest amounts, not justifying how all others are valid though the reversal of smaller amounts from same merchants stands. \n\nSoFis response does not resolve the issues raised in my complaint and does not address the procedural failures that led to continued unauthorized withdrawals, the creation of a substantial overdraft, and the closure of my accounts during an active CFPB investigation. The banks letter repeats prior conclusions without addressing the underlying facts, the regulatory obligations at issue, or the deficiencies in its investigation. \n\n1. SoFi did not address the continued unauthorized withdrawals after I provided timely notice My original complaint explained that : I reported unauthorized electronic transfers before many transactions posted.\n\nI requested that SoFi restrict activity to my physical card only. \nI warned that additional withdrawals were imminent due to the merchants use of rotating billing identifiers. \nXXXXoFis response does not explain : Why no preventative measures were implemented after notice.\n\nWhy SoFi relied on a stop payment mechanism that is ineffective against rotating merchant descriptors.\n\nWhy SoFi allowed the same merchant ecosystem to continue debiting the account after disputes were filed.\n\nRegulation E requires a financial institution to prevent further unauthorized transfers once the consumer provides notice. SoFis response does not address this obligation.\n\n2. SoFi does not address the overdraft created by its own handling of the provisional credit SoFi issued a {$6000.00} provisional credit on XX/XX/XXXX. Instead of securing the account, SoFi allowed the same merchants to withdraw those provisional funds using newly altered identifiers. When SoFi later revoked the provisional credit, the account reflected an overdraft of approximately {$6000.00}. \nThis overdraft : Was not caused by new spending, Was not caused by consumer action, And arose solely from SoFis failure to prevent continued debits during an active dispute. \nSoFis letter does not address this sequence of events or explain how the resulting overdraft could be attributed to me.\n\n3. SoFi claims the transactions were authorized but provides no evidence SoFi states that its decisions were based on an analysis confirming the transactions were authorized. However, the bank does not provide : Any authentication data, Any merchant provided evidence, Any explanation of how authorization was determined, Or any details about the coordination it claims occurred with merchants and financial institutions. \nA bare assertion of authorization does not satisfy the requirement for a reasonable investigation under Regulation XXXX. \n\n4. The merchant information is ambiguous and inconsistent with a legitimate business One of the merchants cited in SoFis denial, XXXX XXXX, lists an address associated with a virtual mailbox service, not a physical business location. This is consistent with high risk digital merchants and fraud linked operations that obscure their identity. \nThis raises several concerns : A merchant using a virtual mailbox can not be reliably verified. \nSoFi does not explain how it confirmed authorization when the merchants identity is ambiguous.\n\nSoFi does not explain how it conducted coordination with a merchant that does not appear to operate from a legitimate physical location. \nA reasonable investigation requires verification of the merchants identity. SoFis response does not address this issue.\n\n5. SoFi does not address the structural issue of rotating merchant identifiers My complaint explained that the merchants used constantly changing billing descriptors, which allowed them to bypass SoFis stop payment measures. This pattern was repeatedly communicated to SoFi.\n\nSoFis response does not acknowledge : The existence of rotating identifiers, The limitations of its stop payment system, Or the banks responsibility to implement alternative protections once notified. \nThis omission is significant because the rotating identifiers were the mechanism that allowed continued unauthorized withdrawals. \n\n6. SoFis explanation for closing my account is unsupported and ignores the timing SoFi closed my accounts on XX/XX/XXXX, while my CFPB complaint was still active. The bank cites a generic clause from its Deposit Account Agreement but does not : Identify which specific provision I allegedly violated, Explain how the supposed violation occurred, Address the fact that the overdraft was created by disputed transactions, Or explain why the account was closed during an active regulatory review. \nClosing the account under these circumstances compounded the harm and deprived me of access to banking services while the dispute remained unresolved. \n\n7. SoFis response contains factual inconsistencies and omissions Examples include : SoFi claims denial documents were sent on XX/XX/XXXX, which is nearly a year after the events in question and appears to be a clerical error. \nSoFi references a stop payment request on XX/XX/XXXX but does not address my earlier warnings or the ineffectiveness of stop payment against rotating identifiers. \nSoFi does not address the lack of transparency regarding its alleged coordination with merchants.\n\nThese inconsistencies further call into question the completeness of the banks investigation.\n\nConclusion SoFis response does not resolve my complaint because it : Fails to address the continued unauthorized withdrawals after notice, Does not explain the overdraft created by its own handling of the provisional credit, Provides no evidence supporting its claim that the transactions were authorized, Does not address the questionable legitimacy of the merchants involved, Ignores the structural issue of rotating billing identifiers, And does not justify closing my account during an active CFPB investigation. \nI respectfully request continued CFPB review to determine whether SoFi complied with Regulation E and whether its handling of my disputes, provisional credit, and account closure deprived me of the protections afforded to consumers reporting unauthorized electronic transfers. \n\nSigned, XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2026-03-11T13:28:20.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"711XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"20162775","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"SOFI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.","date_received":"2026-03-11T13:17:42.000Z","state":"LA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Funds not handled or disbursed as instructed"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>Signed</em>, XXXX XXXX XXXX"]},"sort":[7.294824,"20162775"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"9856790","_score":7.1796207,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Subject : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Owned by a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  by XXXX XXXX XXXX in XXXX with XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX in addition to XXXX, XXXX, Transunion, XXXX, & XXXX XXXX XXXX \nDear Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, I am writing to formally file a complaint against XXXX XXXX, a financial institution owned by a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX by XXXX XXXX XXXX, in association with XXXX XXXX Bank, for severe violations of consumer rights to privacy and deceptive practices & securities fraud. This complaint/tip is submitted in accordance with the Consumer Financial Protection Act, FRCA, CFRs, UCC, XXXX, Securities and Exchange Commission Division of Enforcement , the United Nations Convention on International Bills of Exchange & International Promissory Notes, the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Privacy Act of 1974, the Emergency Banking Act of 1933, the Trading with the Enemy Act, & the UPU Act of 1833.\n\nSpecifically citing the following statutes : Rule 15Ga-1 of the Exchange Act of 1934 ( 17 CFR 240.15Ga-1 ) requires asset-backed securitizers to disclose any fulfilled or unfulfilled requests for repurchase or replacement of assets. These disclosures must be made based on breaches of representations or warranties across all securitizations aggregated by the securitizer for the applicable periods. The rule was issued by the SEC pursuant to Section 943 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, and its purpose is to provide transparency to the market.\n\nUCC Article 1-103. Construction of Uniform Commercial Code to Promote its Purposes and Policies : Applicability of Supplemental Principles of Law.\n\n( a ) The Uniform Commercial Code must be liberally construed and applied to promote its underlying purposes and policies, which are : ( 1 ) to simplify, clarify, and modernise the law governing commercial transactions ; ( 2 ) to permit the continued expansion of commercial practices through custom, usage, and agreement of the parties; and ( 3 ) to make uniform the law among the various jurisdictions.\n\n( b ) Unless displaced by the particular provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code, the principles of law and equity, including the law merchant and the law relative to capacity to contract, principal and agent, estoppel, fraud, misrepresentation, duress, coercion, mistake, bankruptcy, and other validating or invalidating cause supplement its provisions.\n\n16 CFR 313.10 - Limits on disclosure of non-public personal information to nonaffiliated third parties.\n\nIn Addition to the multiple UCC Article Violations There is no law stating that any transaction, charge-off, late payment, or utilization of an account must be reported. As a federally protected consumer ; XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, Transunion, XXXX, & XXXX XXXX XXXX  have repeatedly infringed upon my privacy without my consent per the FCRA which states the following violations being reported 1. ) 15 U.S. Code 6802 : Obligations with Respect to Disclosures of Personal Information - Permissible Purposes of Consumer Reports.\n\n2. ) 15 U.S.Code 1681B : In general, any consumer reporting agency may furnish a consumer report only in accordance with the written instructions of the consumer to whom it relates.\n\n3. ) 15 U.S. Code 6801 : Protection of Nonpublic Personal Information.\n\n4. ) 16 CFR 313.7 Form of Opt-Out Notice to Consumers ; Opt-Out Methods.\n\n5. ) 15 U.S.Code 6802 : Obligations with respect to disclosures of personal information 6. ) Failure to Provide Investigative Consumer Report ; 15 U.S. Code 1681A - Definitions ; rules of Construction 7. ) 15 USC 1681 : Congressional findings and statement of purpose 8. ) 15 U.S. Code 1666 ( a ) : Regulation of credit reports 9. ) 15 U.S. Code 1666 ( b ) : Timing of Payments 10. ) Truth In Lending Act Section 163 11. ) 15 U.S. Code 1601 : Congressional findings and statement of purpose 12. ) 15 U.S. Code 1692 ( c ) - Communication in connection with debt collection The aforementioned financial institution, XXXX XXXX, has engaged in the unauthorized disclosure of my personal information to XXXX XXXX Bank in addition to XXXX, XXXX, Transunion, XXXX, & Early Warning Services. These violations specifically refer to the furnishing of transaction history, late payments, & charge-offs to consumer reporting agencies without obtaining my written consent. These actions are in direct violation of federal laws and regulations designed to protect consumer privacy. \nTo provide context to the situation, my attempts to address this issue directly with XXXX XXXX have been met with disregard and difficulty, lack of cooperation, & inadequate response from XXXX XXXX. I have attached supporting documentation, including a written statement sent to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, NC XXXX informing them of my concerns of current cases and noticed signs of deceptive practices, also proof of the check sent to me by mail ( which now in hindsight appears to be an act of mail fraud being that security was not sent registered mail ) which i then endorsed by signing. After much careful review I now understand that my action of endorsing that check ( or receivable ) created a financial instrument/promissory note/Security. I have serious suspicion that my application/check/promissory note was securitized and transferred/sold without fully disclosing any fiduciary and/or custodian duties that i may have waived my rights to, unknowingly due to there deceptive practices and possible ambiguity at the time of endorsing the said check. Furthermore, to substantiate my claim Ive attached evidence exhibits [ any relevant documents such as correspondence, screenshots of credit reports exhibiting the unlawful furnishing of non-personal information without my written consent. \n\nI trust that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau will handle this matter with the utmost diligence and ensure that justice is served in accordance with federal regulations. I appreciate your attention to this serious issue and am confident that your intervention will bring about a fair resolution. \nFurthermore, I would like to draw your attention to current court cases against XXXX XXXX, such as : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX - Filed Complaint XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX Act of 1934 ( 17 CFR 240.15Ga-1 ) requires asset-backed securitizers to disclose any fulfilled or unfulfilled requests for repurchase or replacement of assets. These disclosures must be made based on breaches of representations or warranties across all securitizations aggregated by the securitizer for the applicable periods. The rule was issued by the SEC pursuant to Section 943 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, and its purpose is to provide transparency to the market. XXXX Several Complaints are XXXX still XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX These cases, which involve similar allegations against XXXX XXXX, underscore the systemic nature of the issues at hand and the urgency for regulatory intervention. \nThank you for your prompt assistance in this matter. I look forward to a timely resolution and your acknowledgement of this complaint.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-08-21T06:16:58.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"28217","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"9856790","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2024-08-21T06:16:56.000Z","state":"NC","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I have attached supporting documentation, including a written statement sent to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, NC XXXX informing them of my concerns of current cases and noticed <em>signs</em> of deceptive practices, also proof of the check sent to me by mail ( which now in hindsight <em>appears</em> to be an act of mail <em>fraud</em> being that security was not sent registered mail ) which i then endorsed by <em>signing</em>."]},"sort":[7.1796207,"9856790"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"15624157","_score":7.143054,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"I am reporting a serious case of account compromise and unauthorized activity involving my Current Bank checking account. I noticed multiple transactions I did not authorize, and after further review, I uncovered signs that my account and device were accessed without my permission. \n\nAt the time of the unauthorized activity, I had several employees who used my phone for business purposes. These individuals were given access to my phone to complete job-related tasks, such as communicating with clients. I never gave anyone my pins or authorization to change anything. I later discovered that an unauthorized fingerprint and face scan had been added to my phone. I never gave permission for this biometric data to be registered. I normally use a passcode, not Face ID. This change shows clear evidence that someone intentionally altered my security settings to gain access. \n\nAdditionally, my email password was changed without my knowledge, further supporting the possibility of a compromise. I was also hospitalized during part of the time the fraudulent charges were made, due to a dog bite injury. During this period, I could not have reasonably reviewed or authorized any transactions.\n\nSome of the transactions were linked to third-party names I do not recognize. One charge appears to have been sent from a Current account to another Current account, yet I never sent or authorized a transfer to this person through Current Pay and do not have knowledge of the person or If the person is real. I do not know if these are real individuals, but Current Bank refused to confirm their identity or how they were able to connect to my card. This raises concerns about security failures on their end, especially since Current allows anyone to log in using a different phone number or email without notifying the account holder or implementing stronger two-factor authentication.\n\nTo make matters worse, Current Bank allowed these individuals to add my debit card to their external wallet or accounts and withdraw money, which should have raised fraud alerts. I did not receive any login codes or security warnings when this occurred. It is also possible that phishing or deleted links were used to bypass my device, and if so, that further emphasizes the need for a full device and login audit.\n\nCurrent denied my dispute with a generic Airtable-style printout and did not provide meaningful evidence showing how they concluded I authorized the charges. There were no IP addresses, timestamps, device logs, or verification code trails included in their response. I was also not granted provisional credit and was given no opportunity to review a full investigation summary.\n\nSince then, I have hired an accountant to review my statements and found discrepancies I never noticed before. I have since terminated employee access to my devices and increased personal security. I have been a loyal customer with no prior disputes, and this experience has been deeply distressing.\n\nI did not authorize these charges. It also shows the charges were made in small then large, it looked like test charges to me. I have never connected any of these accounts to my bank cards or accounts. I have never sent money to the specific name that was current to current, and I do not know of the person. I use current to current but not for that name. Also, I do not have a XXXX account or third-party accounts that do not have my name registered. It does not make sense how someone can add my information at all to any of their accounts without any of my information on it. It is illegal and it is a crime to allow someone to do that. I deserve to be refunded for these unauthorized transactions. This is very traumatic. I am supposed to be protected under EFTA, and they are not able to ignore signs of compromise. They refused to give me documentation related to the denial with supporting evidence. It was just statements ; I gave them evidence of the unauthorized charges and showed them security issues on their end. \n\nI also disputed all XXXX XXXX charges that they claim was never disputed. There is only one charge to XXXX on current to current that they claimed I had a history with. All the XXXX XXXX  charges were disputed as well. All the XXXX charges were disputed as well. They stated there was a history of charges but there is not any history that wasn't disputed. I am pretty sure a computer is communicating with me, and this is a serious matter, I am requesting a real human investigates these charges. I am also willing to press charges. I also sent a signed statement, and they said they need that too move forward in investigation and have not. \n\nDates, amounts and actions : XX/XX/year> : The unauthorized charges began. \nXX/XX/year> : The unauthorized charges stopped. \n\nXX/XX/year> : I noticed the unauthorized transactions and sent the amount I was allowed to send in a single day of my funds to a friend to keep safe and before I could send the rest, they were taken from my account. I also contacted current and checked my bank statements for errors. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX  : I was hospitalized for a dog bite. \n\nXX/XX/year> : I sent my dispute into current bank along with a sworn statement. I also changed my email back when I noticed that it was changed. I spoke to XXXX and XXXX about my dispute, those are current representatives. Current had to update my dispute because all of the charges were not included. They sent me a transcript of our conversation after I requested it which I included in documents. \n\nXX/XX/year> : I started contacting XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX after I noticed my bank wasn't going to help. I am still waiting on responses, and I started reaching out to an accountant to help me as well. \n\nXX/XX/year> : They had a brief investigation and sent me an update that they denied my dispute that soon without proper investigation obviously in that little time frame. I sent them a signed statement and a pdf with all information such as a detailed appeal, a clear timeline and evidence checklist and requests for investigation records. ( which they did not send me, they only sent me a generic airtable sheet with no evidence ). \n\nXX/XX/year> : They sent me another update on my dispute with the same outcome, denied and generic airtable answers that were inaccurate, and I proved otherwise. \n\nXX/XX/year> : I received an update on my police report that I had to live in the jurisdiction that the incident happened in to make a report and was denied due to not living in the jurisdiction. I have started looking into other options and started a Identity theft report but I need a police report to add to it. I am waiting on my jurisdiction to send me a copy of the report denial from here because it did not happen here. \n\nXX/XX/year> : I was given the same update on my dispute, and they closed it out. \n\nXX/XX/year> : I changed my address back when I noticed it had been changed and sent a new card to myself.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-08-30T17:38:42.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"48867","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"15624157","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"FinCo Services Inc DBA Current","date_received":"2025-08-30T15:44:24.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Problem using a debit or ATM card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["To make matters worse, Current Bank allowed these individuals to add my debit card to their external wallet or accounts and withdraw money, which should have raised <em>fraud</em> alerts. I did not receive any login codes or security <em>warnings</em> when this occurred. It is also possible that phishing or deleted links were used to bypass my device, and if so, that further emphasizes the need for a full device and login audit."]},"sort":[7.143054,"15624157"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14135467","_score":7.1155596,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I, XXXX XXXX, am filing a formal complaint against Equifax, a consumer credit reporting agency, for allowing multiple unauthorized hard inquiries on my credit report. I discovered several inquiries on my Equifax credit file that I did not initiate or authorize through any credit applications or consents. This means Equifax furnished my credit report to certain companies without a permissible purpose or my permission, which is a direct violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). Equifax failed in its duty to protect the privacy and accuracy of my credit information by not ensuring that each inquiry was legitimate and authorized, thereby compromising my rights as a consumer. \n\nUnauthorized Credit Inquiries Details The following hard inquiries appear on my Equifax credit report, even though I never applied for credit or services with these entities on the dates in question. I have no relationship with these companies, and I did not consent to any credit checks by them XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX Credit Card Companies Each of the above inquiries was classified as a hard inquiry ( e.g. auto financing, bank, credit card, etc. ), which typically indicates a credit application or new account request. I affirm that I did not initiate any such credit applications with these businesses. The appearance of these inquiries on my report is unauthorized and unexplained from my perspective. \n\nViolations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) Equifaxs actions ( or inaction ) in allowing these improper inquiries constitute clear violations of the FCRAs permissible purpose requirements. The FCRA strictly limits access to a consumers credit report only to those with a permissible purpose and with the consumers consent or initiation. Common permissible purposes include when a consumer applies for credit, insurance, employment, or a loan in other words, situations where the consumer initiates or agrees to the credit check. In this case, no such permissible purpose existed for the six inquiries listed above, since I had no knowledge of or dealings with these companies on those dates. \nUnder FCRA Section 604 ( 15 U.S.C. 1681b ), a credit reporting agency may furnish a consumer report only for certain enumerated permissible purposes and no other. Equifax was obligated by law to verify that each request for my credit report was made for a legitimate, legal purpose ( such as a credit transaction I initiated ). Providing my credit information to entities with whom I had no interaction means Equifax did not ensure a permissible purpose existed, violating FCRA Section 604s core protections. In fact, the FCRA explicitly prohibits any person or company from obtaining a credit report on an individual without a permissible purpose. By furnishing my report in these instances, Equifax enabled parties to see my credit data illegitimately, infringing on my federal right to privacy in my financial information. \n\nFurthermore, FCRA Section 607 ( a ) mandates that credit reporting agencies like Equifax maintain reasonable procedures to avoid releasing credit reports except under those lawful permissible purposes. This means Equifax should have had systems in place to prevent unauthorized or suspicious inquiries from appearing on my file. The presence of multiple unauthorized inquiries over an extended period ( XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX ) indicates a systemic failure in Equifaxs procedures or oversight. Equifax either did not properly vet the inquiry requests or failed to detect that these requests lacked my consent. In either case, Equifax did not uphold its FCRA obligations to protect my data and limit access strictly to authorized parties. \n\nEach improper inquiry on my credit report is not only a privacy violation but also potentially a separate instance of Equifaxs non-compliance with the FCRAs permissible purpose provisions. The law views these violations seriously providing credit information to an unauthorized person can even incur legal penalties. ( For example, its noteworthy that the FCRA provides for criminal liability if a credit bureau willfully provides a credit file to someone without authorization, underscoring how wrongful such conduct is. ) While I am not alleging a criminal act in this complaint, I highlight this to emphasize the gravity of Equifaxs failure to safeguard my report. \n\nImpact on Me and Additional Concerns These unauthorized hard inquiries have caused tangible harm and distress to me as a consumer. First, the appearance of hard inquiries that I didnt initiate has likely damaged my credit score and creditworthiness. As documented by credit experts, each hard inquiry can temporarily lower a credit score by a few points, and multiple hard inquiries in a short period can compound the negative effect. In my case, seeing six inquiries that I did not authorize means my credit score has been unfairly penalized through no fault of my own. This could affect my ability to obtain credit or loan approvals and may result in less favorable terms from lenders, based on a falsely lowered score. \n\nSecondly, the pattern of these inquiries raises alarming concerns about potential identity theft or data misuse. Unauthorized inquiries often serve as a warning sign of fraud. For instance, criminals or unauthorized persons might be using a consumers personal information to shop for loans or credit in that persons name. In my case, I have observed that some of these inquiries were followed by accounts or activities on my credit report that I do not recognize or ever request. In other words, after certain inquiries ( for example, those on XX/XX/XXXX ), there appear to be new credit accounts or loan entries from those same companies that I never opened. This strongly suggests that someone may have fraudulently applied for credit using my identity, or that my personal data has been mishandled. \n\nIf these inquiries are indeed linked to fraudulent accounts, it means my sensitive personal information was not only accessed without authorization but possibly used to open illicit accounts. This situation is extremely distressing and underscores a failure by Equifax to protect my consumer data. As the steward of my credit file, Equifax should detect and prevent unusual or multiple inquiries that deviate from my normal behavior especially those resulting in accounts I never knew about. By allowing these entries to persist, Equifax has put me at risk of further fraud and financial loss, and it has eroded my confidence in the security of the credit reporting system. \n\nMoreover, I have spent significant time and effort dealing with the fallout : monitoring my credit, contacting the entities listed, and experiencing anxiety over possible identity theft. The invasion of privacy and the emotional distress from knowing my credit report was accessed by unknown parties can not be overstated. The economic harm is also real, as my credit reputation has been unjustly tarnished. All of these consequences stem from Equifaxs failure to adhere to FCRAs requirements and to safeguard my data from unauthorized use.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-06-17T05:21:12.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"30331","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14135467","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-06-17T05:07:17.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Unauthorized inquiries often serve as a <em>warning</em> <em>sign</em> of <em>fraud</em>. For instance, criminals or unauthorized persons might be using a consumers personal information to shop for loans or credit in that persons name. In my case, I have observed that some of these inquiries were followed by accounts or activities on my credit report that I do not recognize or ever request."]},"sort":[7.1155596,"14135467"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18088672","_score":6.767226,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"I am filing this complaint because XXXX XXXX is reporting XXXX separate collection accounts on my credit reportsone with a balance of {$1400.00} and another with a balance of XXXX XXXXXXXX neither of these accounts belong to me. I have absolutely no knowledge of these accounts, I have never authorized them, and I have never received any bills, statements, correspondence, or communication regarding these debts. Because these accounts are fraudulent and do not belong to me, I filed an FTC Identity Theft Report, and I have disputed both accounts with the credit bureaus multiple times. \n\nDespite my disputes, XXXX XXXX continued reporting these accounts and the credit bureaus marked them as verified, even though no documentation has ever been shown to me. These accounts have severely damaged my credit, and the situation has not been resolved through normal dispute channels, which is why I am asking for CFPB intervention. \n\nBelow is exactly what happened in detail. \n\nXXXX. The XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Not XXXX XXXX XXXX is reporting XXXX accounts : Account XXXX : Balance : {$1400.00} Shown as a collection/charge-off Appears under XXXX XXXX account number XXXX Account XXXX : Balance : {$210.00} Also shown as a collection/charge-off Appears under XXXX XXXX account number XXXX I do not XXXX XXXX account. I never opened an account that could have resulted in these balances, nor have I ever had service or credit relationships with any creditor XXXX XXXX claims to represent. I never received : Bills Late notices Statements Emails Letters Phone calls Any form of communication The first time I ever saw these XXXX alleged debts was when I reviewed my credit report. \n\nThese accounts are completely fraudulent. \n\nXXXX. XXXX XXXX Never Sent Me Any Required Validation or Notice Under FDCPA XXXX ( a ), XXXX XXXX must send a written notice within XXXX days of attempting to collect. \n\nI have never received : A validation letter A notice of rights Proof of the original creditor An itemized statement Documentation of charges Copies of any contract Any communication at all XXXX XXXX failed to send the legally required notice before reporting these accounts to the credit bureaus. \n\nThis means they reported the accounts without providing me any opportunity to dispute or validate them beforehand. \n\nXXXX. I Disputed Both XXXX  Accounts With All XXXX Credit Bureaus XXXX  I discovered the accounts, I immediately filed disputes with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  My dispute specifically stated : I do not own these XXXX accounts I never authorized these debts I did not receive validation These accounts are fraudulent XXXX XXXX must provide documentation I explicitly asked for : The name of the original creditor Copies of any signed agreements Billing history Proof of ownership Dates of service or transactions A validation notice under FDCPA 809 ( b ) Evidence linking me to the accounts However, XXXX XXXX did not provide the credit bureaus with documentation showing the accounts belonged to me, and they provided no documentation to me at all. \n\nXXXX. The Credit Bureaus Did Not Provide a Method of Verification ( XXXX  ) Under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( XXXX ), the bureaus must tell me : How the accounts were verified What information XXXX XXXX provided Whether any documentation was reviewed The name and contact information of the furnisher None of this was provided. \n\nThe bureaus simply returned a generic verified response without providing any evidence. This shows the dispute process failed. \n\nXXXX. I Filed an FTC Identity Theft Report to Document Fraud Because these accounts do not belong to me, I filed an FTC Identity Theft Report ( XXXX  ). This federal affidavit confirms : Both XXXX XXXX accounts are fraudulent My identity was used without authorization I did not open, authorize, or benefit from these debts I am requesting these accounts be removed as identity theft Under FCRA 605B, the credit bureaus must : Block fraudulent information Remove it within XXXX business days Prevent reinsertion XXXX XXXX XXXX Despite this, both accounts remained. \n\nXXXX. XXXX XXXX Failed to Validate the Debts Even after my disputes, XXXX XXXX : Did not provide validation Did not provide contracts Did not provide itemized statements Did not show original creditor information Did not prove I owed any debt Did not respond with documentation Under FDCPA 809 ( b ) : A debt collector must cease collection and reporting until validation is provided. \n\nXXXX XXXX did not provide validation, yet continued reporting. \n\nXXXX. The Fraudulent Accounts Damaged My Credit These XXXX accountstotaling {$1400.00} and $ XXXX significantly harmed my credit by : Dropping my credit score Adding multiple derogatory accounts Classifying me as high-risk Preventing approval for credit applications Increasing interest rates Affecting rental and housing approval Damaging my creditworthiness XXXX fraudulent collection account is damaging ; XXXX accounts from the same company have an even greater negative effect. \n\nXXXX. The Reporting Violates Several FCRA and FDCPA Laws FCRA Violations : 602A Failure to ensure maximum possible accuracy 605B Failure to block identity theft information 607 ( b ) Reporting inaccurate data 611 ( a ) Inadequate dispute reinvestigation 611 ( a ) ( XXXX ) Failure to provide method of verification FDCPA Violations : 809 ( a ) No required written notice 809 ( b ) No validation provided 807 ( XXXX ) Reporting false information to credit bureaus 807 ( XXXX ) ( A ) Misrepresenting character or legal status of a debt XXXX. I Have No Relationship With the Original Creditor XXXX XXXX accounts do not indicate which original creditor they are collecting for. This is suspicious and violates FDCPA notice requirements. For both accounts : I never opened a qualifying account I never received service that matches these amounts I never received delinquency warnings No late notices or balances were ever sent to me If the debts were legitimate, there would be : A contract Billing statements Records of communication Proof of services or charges XXXX XXXX has provided none. \n\nXXXX. This Appears to Be Identity Theft, a Mixed File, or Incorrect Assignment The accounts may be the result of : Identity theft Someone elses debt incorrectly assigned to my file A creditor misreporting information A creditor assigning the wrong consumer XXXX XXXX purchasing incomplete debt portfolios Incorrect or outdated personal data Either way, the accounts are not mine, and the situation must be corrected. \n\nXXXX. I Took Every Legal Step Available Before Filing This CFPB Complaint I have : Disputed both XXXX  accounts with the credit bureaus Requested validation Filed an FTC Identity Theft Report Provided documentation Attempted to resolve through regular dispute channels Submitted fraud affidavits Requested removal multiple times Yet both accounts remain on my credit reports. \n\nXXXX XXXX never showed proof that the accounts belong to me, and the bureaus failed to conduct a meaningful investigation. \n\nThis is why I need CFPB assistance. \n\nXXXX. Summary of What Happened XXXX XXXX is reporting XXXX fraudulent collection accounts : {$1400.00} ( XXXX ) {$210.00} ( XXXX ) I do not own these accounts I never received any notice or validation I disputed them with the credit bureaus I filed an FTC Identity Theft Report XXXX XXXX provided no documentation The credit bureaus failed to verify properly Both accounts remain, causing ongoing harm These accounts violate multiple FCRA and FDCPA laws I am requesting full removal, investigation, and correction","date_sent_to_company":"2025-12-02T19:30:44.000Z","issue":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","sub_product":"I do not know","zip_code":"63033","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18088672","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Aargon Agency, Inc.","date_received":"2025-12-02T19:20:43.000Z","state":"MO","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Debt is not yours"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I Filed an FTC Identity Theft Report to Document <em>Fraud</em> Because these accounts do not belong to me, I filed an FTC Identity Theft Report ( XXXX  )."]},"sort":[6.767226,"18088672"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8697892","_score":6.7243032,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I graduated from The XXXX XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. From the day I graduated, and 6 months leading up to my graduation Ive been looking for a job. In XXXX I thought I had landed my dream job, but it's overwhelmingly evident now that wasnt the case, it was instead a scam. \n\nI am providing all of the documentation, but I thought it would be helpful to tell my story. I received an email from XXXX XXXX, a bona fide company based in XXXX XXXX, CA that creates and sells XXXX resistant beach towels, among other products. The job was for a remote position doing XXXX XXXX for said company, something I greatly enjoy doing, and wouldve excelled at in a true professional setting. I had applied to numerous jobs in previous days, so the listing likely originated from XXXX or Indeed. \n\nThe interviews ( beginning XX/XX/XXXX ) were conducted over email and over the phone via text messages. Once I got the job, or what I thought was a real job, I was sent a contract and was told to sign and return the contract along with a copy of my drivers license, which I did on XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nAs is good business practice, my parents had their attorney review the contract for me. He told me to ask some questions regarding withholding taxes for Fed, State, and local, whether or not the employer matches or contributes to a 401K, and whether or not health insurance is covered at their expense. Otherwise, we felt that the contract looked legitimate, and after having my questions answered by the supposed interviewer to a degree I deemed adequate, I continued interaction. I have enclosed the contract for your review. \n\nI was told by XXXX XXXX at XXXX XXXX that I would be sent a check to purchase a computer and equipment needed to perform my new job. From my knowledge, I recognized the equipment they mentioned, and the prospect of not only owning but using such equipment for my job left me something beyond excited. \n\nMuch to my dismay, I was sent a PICTURE of a check for {$4900.00} XX/XX/XXXX. I was told to print the picture and deposit it via my mobile banking app. This seemed odd to me, but due to the fact that this was to be my first job in the real world ( or so I thought ), and that the location of the company itself was far different from my home state, I assumed that maybe laws and employment processes worked differently there than they did here. Clearly, my assumptions proved wrong. \n\nStill, that same day, on XX/XX/XXXX I went to my Key Bank branch and spoke with the branch XXXX named XXXX. I showed him the picture of the check, and asked him what he thought. He told me it seemed a little odd due to the lack of an address under the company name, but if I were to proceed then I should do so with caution. \n\nStill wary, I had my dad call XXXXXXXX XXXX, the bank that the check was drawn on, and explained the situation. He gave them the routing and account number on the check, and although they couldnt tell him much, they did confirm that it was in fact XXXXXXXX XXXX account. This is what sold me on the idea of depositing the check, my thinking was that if the check came from the real company, then that would rectify all the strangeness of the situation. \n\nPer the suggestion of my dad, I opened a new account with Key Bank ( I had at that point already had a checking and savings account with Key Bank for several years ) thinking that if anything fishy was going on, this would protect my existing accounts, and Key Bank as well. I printed and deposited the check into that new account. After speaking with my parents we decided that I would not go out and purchase a computer or equipment until I knew that the check had cleared. \n\nDespite all of this, I was growing increasingly uneasy. I reached out to the XXXX XXXX customer service department via the telephone number on their website, because this was the only contact I could find for the company, outside of the email and phone # that I had been communicating with ( the XXXX XXXX imposters ). \n\nSadly, I received a text reply to my query that following morning on XX/XX/XXXX, letting me know that I had not been communicating with the bona fide XXXX XXXX, and that I was being scammed. Immediately after reading that message, I froze the new account I had created for this check via my mobile app in an attempt to stop the check from processing. On that day I spoke with XXXX XXXX. I signed a XXXX XXXX documenting the events of the previous days. \n\nAfter doing so, I immediately went back to my local Key Bank branch the second that it opened and let them know that I had been a victim of a scam, and the check that I had received and deposited was fraudulent. \n\nThe bank XXXX froze all of my accounts pending an investigation. I was told it would take about 2 weeks to complete the investigation. \n\nI had no idea that I was potentially at risk of having ALL of my accounts not only frozen, but deactivated entirely. Worse still that my name has now been added to XXXX XXXX, a consumer reporting agency, and now I cant affiliate myself with ANY bank, something I didnt know could happen until more than 2 weeks had elapsed regarding the timeline of the investigation. I thought that opening a separate account would protect me and Key from any sort of fraudulent activity or scam. All I wanted from this situation was to justify all the sleepless nights I had searching and applying for jobs, the countless rejection emails, and maybe have a chance to come out on top of the job market, furthermore the game of life, both of which had become more daunting to me by the day. \n\nPlease look carefully at all of the documentation that I am providing. Not only did I not get my dream job, but the accounts that Ive held at Key since I was 18 have been closed, and now it appears that I may never be able to open a bank account again. I sought legitimate employment with hopes I would be able to prosper, only to have the rug pulled out from under me, along with any hope I held that I could cross any financial milestone I had set for my future. I feel like I was made a victim twice, first by the fraudulent job listing, and second by the institution I thought was supposed to protect me from victimization in the first place. \n\nFurthermore, I filed a dispute with XXXX XXXX  on XX/XX/XXXX ( after requesting and receiving their Comprehensive File Disclosure ). On XX/XX/XXXX I received an email saying that the reinvestigation confirms that the information contained in my file is accurate and complete as of the date it was furninshed ( by Key Bank ) to their database. The report indicates \" Checking Account Fraud ''. \n\nFirst let me say, that with my name being on the Early Warning list, I am unable to open a checking account with any financial institution that checks my consumer report. Furthermore, I was the victim of fraud NOT the perpetrator.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-04-04T15:38:36.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing issue","sub_product":"Other personal consumer report","zip_code":"440XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8697892","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"KEYCORP","date_received":"2024-04-04T14:19:42.000Z","state":"OH","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Problem with personal statement of dispute"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["The report indicates \" Checking Account <em>Fraud</em> ''. \n\nFirst let me say, that with my name being on the Early <em>Warning</em> list, I am unable to open a checking account with any financial institution that checks my consumer report. Furthermore, I was the victim of <em>fraud</em> NOT the perpetrator."]},"sort":[6.7243032,"8697892"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"5698166","_score":6.6729145,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX XXXX  I was a victim of a scam involving Zelle and XXXX.  I made multiple complaints to XXXX  and filed disputes 3 times, and all of them have been denied.  Below are the email correspondence I have had with them.  The entire story is explained in the emails below.  \n\nToday, my intention is to request refunds of the money that was taken from my account by a fraudster pretending to be a XXXX  fraud specialist and used Zelle to remove XXXX from both my checking and savings accounts. Through research, I learned that this Zelle scam has been happening through multiple banks since XXXX. In the 3 years since this has been a known scam, there should have been extra precautions taken by Zelle and/or their affiliated banks!!!  Because Zelle is the company that was responsible for removing the money from my accounts, I am requesting that Zelle take responsibility and refunded the money that was taken from my accounts by a fraudster that knew this scam had been working for the last 3 years!!!!.\n\nFrom: XXXX XXXX XXXX\nTo: XXXX\nDate: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Dear XXXX XXXX XXXX,\nI am devastated both financially and emotionally after being a victim of a Zelle scam through XXXX. I have been a\ncustomer with XXXX  since XXXX. I was one of the 1st people who signed up for a debit card and I actually won a prize\nas part of the promotion. That is how long I have been a customer. I have always trusted XXXX. However, in the last 2 years, I have had my bank account compromised, multiple times. At the end of XXXX, I had to close all of my accounts\ndue to a breach into my checking account and XXXX XXXX credit cards. I had my checking and savings accounts for over\n35 years, I was upset to have to close my long time accounts, I knew the account numbers by heart! Although I had to\nopen new accounts, I continued to trust XXXX. I felt that XXXX  was one of few banks that still have integrity and\nare truly concerned for their customers. That is, until now.......\nOn XXXX XXXX XXXX  I was called by someone from the XXXXXXXX XXXX number from the fraud department. I was informed\nthat I had been a victim of fraud through Zelle. This person took me through steps that were suppose to cancel the Zelle\ndeposits and put the money back in my account. It was very upsetting and I didn't really understand what we were\ndoing, but I trusted, because the number was from the XXXX, XXXX number. And, because, I had multiple issues with\nfraud on my accounts, in the last few years. I was made to believe we had to hurry or the money could not be retrieved.\nAfter we went through all the steps, I was asking questions about how this had happened and we got cut off (I now know\nthe person hung up on me). When I called back to talk to the fraud department to ask additional questions, I was\ninformed I had been involved in the ZELLE scam that has been going on for the last few months at XXXX.. I was told\nthat this is a known scam and that I would get my money back, once it went through the process of investigation. They\ntold me it would likely be 10 working days before I would be reimbursed. I spoke to a few more people in the fraud department over the last 4 weeks. On XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX I spoke to someone who said her manager said the XXXX\nday was actually the XXXX. So, I hung up believing I would see the money back in my accounts the next day. I called\nagain on XXXX XXXX XXXX because there was no reimbursements in my accounts. For the 1st time since the\n\"incident\", I was informed, by a fraud specialist named, XXXX, that I might not get a refund of the money that was\ntaken from my accounts. She told me that whom ever had filed my dispute had not included any notes on the\ncircumstances of what had actually happened on XXXX. The fraud specialist, XXXX, said she would follow up\nand include the information of exactly what happened that day. On XXXX XXXX XXXX, I received XXXX letters, dated XXXX,\nthat my disputes were denied. I was SHOCKED and completely DEVISTATED by the results of this dispute. I am\nbarely making it financially due to my inability to work because of COVID restrictions. I had just been paid, on XXXX XXXX XXXX. I did not have money this month to pay my rent or other payments that are auto paid through my account.\nXXXX XXXX XXXX  was STOLEN FROM MY BANK ACCOUNTS.. I would have never used Zelle had I not\nbeen called by a person identifying himself as a fraud specialist from XXXX, with a caller ID that confirmed the call was\nfrom XXXX.\nAfter I received the dispute denial letters, I called and talked to another fraud specialist named, XXXX. I went through\nthe entire story with her. She said she would send XXXX  an email to inform her that I received denial letters dated\nXXXX that could not have had the information that XXXX  took on XXXX XXXX XXXX  suggested to give it a week,\nand call back to see if there had been any action by XXXX  to re-file the dispute with the information missing from\nthe 1st dispute report. I called again, on XXXX XXXX XXXX The fraud specialist I spoke to, said that a re-filling had not been\ncompleted. I told my story, AGAIN, and she told me she would re-file it for me, with all the information. It is now, XXXX XXXX XXXX. She told me I probably would not receive a response from the 2nd, filing for 10 days or more. I decided to\nsend this letter in hopes that you or someone at a higher level of XXXX could look into my dispute with a complete\nunderstanding of what occurred.\nI think this situation has been handled extremely poorly and I am the only one paying for this XXXX  Zelle scam. My\nbiggest question is, why? Why would XXXX  do business with Zelle knowing there are no safety protocols? Zelle\nwas allowed to remove unlimited amounts of money from my accounts, without a safety protocol that would limit the\namount or have another way to verify that the person removing the money is the bank account owner? This is NOT a\ngood way to protect your customers from this kind of fraud/scam.\nI know I am small potatoes, when it comes to being a customer of XXXX. But, I have been a loyal customer for many,\nmany years. Please don't shatter my belief, that XXXX  is a bank of ethical integrity and it takes this kind of scam\nvery seriously and the customer that was victimized, as a result.\nPlease help me resolve this unfortunate issue.\nThank you for your effort, in advance, to make this situation right.\nXXXX XXXX XXXX\nAcknowledgement of your email to XXXX XXXX\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Thank you for your email to chairman, president and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  I appreciate the\nopportunity to acknowledge your communication on behalf of XXXX XXXX and our executive offices.\nWe regret to learn of the concerns described in your email and appreciate that youve taken this time to\nreach out to us. Please understand, we have a formal process for researching concerns; as such, we\nrequested that your communications be reviewed by those that are in the best position to respond directly\nto you. Once we have completed a thorough review, it is our expectation that you will receive a phone call,\nor a written response will be provided to you as soon as possible.\nWe are aware of the importance of addressing your inquiry in a timely manner; therefore, we will strive to\nexpedite a response and we appreciate your patience during this time.\nSincerely,\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX\n\nI received a letter on XXXX XXXX XXXX from the XXXX XXXX XXXX Response Unit, that again denied my claims.\n\nI sent another email yesterday, XXXX XXXX XXXX  and received another response from the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ZELLE XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX CDT XXXX XXXX XXXX Dear XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX,\nThis is my 2nd email regarding the Zelle scam I was a victim of. Please refer to\nattachments with my original emails. XXXX XXXX XXXX, responded to my initial email to\nXXXX XXXX  She informed me that \"we requested that your communications be\nreviewed by those that are in the best position to respond directly to you\". \"Once we\nhave completed a thorough review, it is our expectation that you will receive a\nphone call, or a written response will be provided to you as soon as possible\".\nI received a letter from the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  on XXXX XXXX XXXX The letter was not signed by a person, just the department XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Although, I appreciate the review of the denied fraud\nclaim, I still feel that my situation is not being completely understood. I was referred\nto the \"Digital Services Agreement\". This means nothing to me, because I did not\nregister for Zelle until I was guided to do so by the fraudster. Also, what was left\nout, is the fact that in the last 2 or 2.5 years, I have had multiple breaches to my\nchecking account and had to order at least 2 or 3 new debit cards, the last being at\nthe beginning of XXXX  or it could have been XXXX XXXX XXXX. 2 years ago, I had\na very serious breach and I had to have my accounts closed and had to open new\naccounts. That being said, at that time, when I spoke to the fraud specialists after\nthese breaches occurred, they were given permission to access my accounts as we\nwent over things and made changes. Even when this last breach occurred, the\n\"real\" fraud specialist was given permission to navigate into my account to help me\n(I gave them permission). So, when this imposter fraud person was supposably\nhelping me, when his name appeared under my name on the Zelle account, I was\ntold that was so he could see what was happening as we returned my money to my\naccount.\nEven though I apparently agreed to the Digital Agreement, I was under the direction\nof the person impersonating a fraud specialist. I had not and would never have\nopened a Zelle account if I hadn't been guided to do so, by the person claiming to\nbe a fraud specialist. I do not feel these aspects of my individual situation are being\nunderstood or taken into consideration. I am a loyal customer of XXXX years. I know\nyou have policies and procedures that are to be followed, but I think that exceptions\nshould be considered with individual circumstances, like mine, which, I have tried to\nexplain to the best of my ability.\nThe recent letter also reported that a request to recover funds was sent to Zelle, but\nthey are not obligated to return these funds or respond to the request.\nSince having been scammed by Zelle through XXXX XXXX, I have been doing some research.\nThe Zelle scam has been occurring through XXXX  since the beginning of XXXX  but has\nbeen a known scam through other banks such as XXXX XXXX XXXX, since XXXX. With more\ninvestigation I have discovered that several banks have had significant scam issues through\nZelle. I was extremely SHOCKED to find out that XXXX XXXX is one of the 7 OWNERS of\nZelle through a company, ironically called, EWS (Early Warning Services). I have links\nbelow where I got this information. I can't help but feel that XXXX XXXX  has financially\nprofited from the Zelle scam that victimized me and so many others. So, the request that\nwas sent to Zelle, was essentially sent to EWS which XXXX XXXX partially owns.\nYou cannot imagine how terribly disappointed I am to find out that XXXX  is\nnot the financial institution I have always believed them to be. I literally cried when I\nfound this information. A bank I have done ALL my banking through for XXXX\nyears, has become just another big bank that has no ethical integrity or concern for\nits patrons. This is not the bank I opened accounts with XXXX years ago!!\nThe last thing I want to mention is this information:\nThe Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) recently announced it\nwas conducting a probe into companies operating payments systems in the United States,\nwith a special focus on platforms that offer fast, person-to-person payments.\nMore can be found here:\nThe Zelle Fraud Scam: How it Works, How to Fight Back XXXX on Security XXXX If this issue is not resolved and I do not receive the money that was \"stolen\" from my accounts, I will be researching lawyers that take on class action suits of this nature. With Great DisappointmentXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2022-06-22T21:02:23.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Mobile or digital wallet","zip_code":"620XX","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"5698166","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Early Warning Services, LLC","date_received":"2022-06-22T20:17:48.000Z","state":"IL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["With more\ninvestigation I have discovered that <em>several</em> banks have had significant scam issues through\nZelle. I was extremely SHOCKED to find out that XXXX XXXX is one of the 7 OWNERS of\nZelle through a company, ironically called, EWS (Early <em>Warning</em> Services). I have links\nbelow where I got this information. I can't help but feel that XXXX XXXX  has financially\nprofited from the Zelle scam that victimized me and so many others."],"issue":["<em>Fraud</em> or scam"],"company":["Early <em>Warning</em> Services, LLC"]},"sort":[6.6729145,"5698166"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17885312","_score":6.591972,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"I am filing this complaint because Credit Collection Services ( CCS ) is reporting a collection account with a balance of {$150.00} on my credit report, and this account is not mine. I have never opened, authorized, or been associated with any account that would result in this balance or be assigned to CCS. I have never received any communication, billing statements, notices, or documentation from CCS or any original creditor indicating that I owed this debt. The presence of this account on my credit report is entirely fraudulent, and as a result, I filed an FTC Identity Theft Report. I have repeatedly disputed this account with the credit bureaus, yet it remains on my report without any proof, validation, or supporting documentation. Because of this, I am requesting the CFPBs intervention. \n\nBelow, I will describe in detail what happened, the steps I took, the laws that protect me, the failures on the part of CCS and the credit bureaus, and how this fraudulent account has negatively affected me. \n\n1. Discovery of the CCS Account The first time I ever learned about a debt linked to Credit Collection Services was when I checked my credit report. I had never been contacted by CCS before this. There were no letters, calls, emails, or billing statements of any kind. There was no original creditor information provided to me, and I had no prior knowledge of a {$150.00} balance that was allegedly owed. This account appeared without warning and without any explanation. \n\nAs soon as I saw it, I knew immediately that this account did not belong to me. I have never had a relationship with any company that would have sold or assigned a debt to CCS. The lack of prior communication from either an original creditor or CCS itself was a major red flag and indicated that the debt was either fraudulent, incorrectly assigned, or placed due to a mixed credit file. \n\nXXXX. The Account Is Fraudulent I Do Not Owe This Debt I want to be very clear : I do not owe this debt. I did not authorize it. I did not sign up for anything related to it. I did not have any service or product that would create this type of obligation. This CCS account, showing a balance of {$150.00}, is fraudulent. \n\nBecause this debt is not mine, I filed an FTC Identity Theft Report, affirming under federal protection laws that I am a victim of identity theft or misuse. This FTC report establishes that : Someone may have used my identity without my permission The account is fraudulent I am disputing the legitimacy of this collection I am requesting removal and blocking under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) CCS must cease reporting until they provide actual validation The FTC Identity Theft Report legally triggers several protections under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), especially 605B, which requires the credit bureaus to block fraudulent data. \n\nXXXX. CCS Never Sent a Validation Notice as Required by Law Under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) 809 ( a ), CCS is required to send me a written validation notice within five days of first attempting to collect a debt. This notice must include : The amount of the debt The name of the original creditor My rights to dispute the debt Instructions for requesting validation CCS never sent anything to me. Not one letter. Not one notice. Nothing at all. \n\nThis is a direct violation of federal law. \n\nA collection account can not legally appear on my credit report without CCS first : Contacting me Informing me of the alleged debt Providing a chance to dispute Offering validation documentation Identifying the original creditor None of this occurred. \n\nXXXX. I Disputed the CCS Account With All Three Credit Bureaus Once I saw the CCS account on my report, I immediately filed disputes with : XXXX XXXX  XXXX  I informed each bureau that : I do not own this account I never authorized the underlying debt I never received verification The account is the result of fraud or identity misuse I filed an FTC Identity Theft Report I requested a full reinvestigation I specifically asked for the following information : The name of the original creditor Documentation proving I opened the account Billing history Contracts or agreements with my signature Dates of service or use Any validation CCS claimed to have Method of Verification under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ) The credit bureaus did not provide any of this information.\n\n5. CCS Failed to Validate the Debt as Required by FDCPA 809 ( b ) After receiving my disputes, CCS was required to : Provide written verification of the debt Provide a copy of any signed contract Provide the original creditors information Provide documentation linking the debt to me Cease collection and reporting until validation was provided CCS did none of the above. \n\nInstead, the account remained on my credit report despite the absence of proof. This indicates that CCS likely did not have any actual documentation to prove the debt belongs to me, yet they continued reporting it. \n\nThis is a clear violation of FDCPA 809 ( b ) which states : The debt collector shall cease collection of the debt until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt. \n\nReporting the debt to the credit bureaus is considered a form of collection activity. \n\nXXXX. The Credit Bureaus Did Not Provide a Method of Verification Under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ), when a consumer disputes an account, the credit bureau must tell the consumer : How the account was verified What documents were used Who provided the verification What steps were taken to resolve the dispute None of the bureaus provided : The Method of Verification Any documentation Any actual evidence They simply returned generic statements saying the account was verified, which is impossible when CCS never validated the debt in the first place. \n\nThis suggests that the bureaus likely relied on automated data through the e-OSCAR system, where furnishers often verify disputes by clicking automated responses without providing any supporting documents. \n\nThis is not a meaningful investigation under the FCRA. \n\nXXXX. CCS Appears to Have Furnished Inaccurate or Unverified Information The reporting of this debt violates multiple sections of the FCRA : FCRA 602A Requires maximum possible accuracy of reporting. \n\nCCS reported a completely inaccurate and fraudulent account. \n\nFCRA 607 ( b ) Furnishers must have reasonable procedures to assure accuracy.\n\nIf CCS had these procedures, they would not be reporting fraudulent data.\n\nFCRA 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) Furnishers may not report information they know or should know is inaccurate.\n\nMy dispute and FTC Identity Theft Report put CCS on notice that the account is fraudulent.\n\nFCRA 611 ( a ) Bureaus must conduct a reasonable reinvestigation. \n\nThey failed to do so. \n\nXXXX. Harm Caused by the CCS Account The fraudulent CCS account has caused me substantial harm, including : Lower credit scores Increased risk ratings Reduced creditworthiness Difficulty obtaining credit Emotional stress Time spent disputing fraudulent data Potential denial of financial opportunities Even though the balance is {$150.00}, the impact of a single derogatory collection is severe. \n\nIt affects : Payment history ( the most important scoring factor ) Derogatory account count Collection indicators Lender perception This damage is ongoing and unjust.\n\n9. This Debt May Be the Result of Identity Theft or a Mixed File Given the circumstances, this CCS account could have resulted from : Identity theft A mixed credit file Incorrect reporting Data contamination CCS furnishing incomplete or inaccurate information A creditor assigning debts to the wrong consumer My FTC Identity Theft Report confirms fraud, and the inconsistencies in the reporting strongly indicate misidentification. \n\nXXXX. CCS Did Not Provide the Name of the Original Creditor A major red flag is that CCS did not disclose : Who the original creditor was What type of account this was When the account was opened When it went delinquent Any contract or agreement This omission violates both the FCRA and FDCPA. \n\nA consumer can not owe money to an unknown creditor. \n\nXXXX. CCS Never Contacted Me Prior to Reporting the Debt CCS did not : Call Email Send letters Provide dispute rights Provide validation This is a violation of consumer rights. \n\nCollectors can not legally report a debt without notifying the consumer first. I never received any communication of any kind from CCS. \n\nXXXX. My FTC Identity Theft Report Should Have Triggered an Automatic Block Under FCRA 605B, the credit bureaus must block fraudulent information when a consumer submits an Identity Theft Report. \n\nI provided such a report. \n\nDespite this : The CCS account stayed No block was applied No reinvestigation correction occurred This is a failure on the part of the credit bureaus. \n\nXXXX. I Acted in Good Faith to Correct the Fraudulent Reporting I have done everything federal law requires : Reviewed my credit Identified fraudulent activity Filed disputes with all credit bureaus Requested validation Filed an FTC Identity Theft Report Followed all FCRA and FDCPA procedures Despite taking all appropriate steps, the wrongful reporting continues. \n\nXXXX. Summary of Violations Credit Collection Services ( CCS ) violated : FDCPA 809 ( a ) failure to send validation notice FDCPA 809 ( b ) failure to validate after dispute FDCPA 807 reporting false or misleading information FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) furnishing inaccurate information FCRA 607 ( b ) failing to ensure accuracy Credit Bureaus Violated : FCRA 605B failure to block fraudulent data FCRA 611 ( a ) inadequate reinvestigation FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ) failure to provide Method of Verification 15. Final Statement The Credit Collection Services account in the amount of {$150.00} is fraudulent, unauthorized, unvalidated, and unsupported. It appeared on my credit report without any communication, verification, or legal notice. I have disputed it multiple times, filed an FTC Identity Theft Report, and followed every required step of the dispute process. CCS has never proven the debt belongs to me because no such proof exists. This account is harming my credit and violating my federally protected rights.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-12-02T20:14:26.000Z","issue":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","sub_product":"I do not know","zip_code":"63033","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17885312","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CCS Financial Services, Inc.","date_received":"2025-12-02T20:00:05.000Z","state":"MO","company_public_response":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","sub_issue":"Debt is not yours"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This account <em>appeared</em> without <em>warning</em> and without any explanation. \n\nAs soon as I saw it, I knew immediately that this account did not belong to me. I have never had a relationship with any company that would have sold or assigned a debt to CCS. The lack of prior communication from either an original creditor or CCS itself was a major red flag and indicated that the debt was either fraudulent, incorrectly assigned, or placed due to a mixed credit file. \n\nXXXX."]},"sort":[6.591972,"17885312"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":34,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":34}]}},"product":{"doc_count":34,"product":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":7,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":7}]}},{"key":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":6,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":5},{"key":"Other personal consumer report","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Checking or savings account","doc_count":5,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Checking account","doc_count":5}]}},{"key":"Credit card","doc_count":4,"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":"Store credit card","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Debt collection","doc_count":4,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit card debt","doc_count":2},{"key":"I do not know","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","doc_count":4,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Domestic (US) money transfer","doc_count":1},{"key":"International money transfer","doc_count":1},{"key":"Mobile or digital wallet","doc_count":1},{"key":"Virtual currency","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Mortgage","doc_count":3,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Conventional home mortgage","doc_count":1},{"key":"FHA mortgage","doc_count":1},{"key":"VA mortgage","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Vehicle loan or lease","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Loan","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"issue":{"doc_count":34,"issue":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Incorrect information on your report","doc_count":8,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Information belongs to someone else","doc_count":5},{"key":"Account information incorrect","doc_count":3}]}},{"key":"Fraud or scam","doc_count":4,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Managing an account","doc_count":4,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Banking errors","doc_count":2},{"key":"Funds not handled or disbursed as instructed","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":3,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Card was charged for something you did not purchase with the card","doc_count":1},{"key":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement","doc_count":1},{"key":"Overcharged for something you did purchase with the card","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Debt is not yours","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Improper use of your report","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Reporting company used your report improperly","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Written notification about debt","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Didn't receive enough information to verify debt","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Applying for a mortgage or refinancing an existing mortgage","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Credit monitoring or identity theft protection services","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Billing dispute for services","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Opening an account","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Unable to open an account","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Other features, terms, or problems","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Problem with customer service","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing issue","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Problem with personal statement of dispute","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Repossession","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Company explaining amount owed","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":"Trouble during payment process","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}}]}},"timely":{"doc_count":34,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":33},{"key":"No","doc_count":1}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":34,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":25},{"key":"Closed with non-monetary relief","doc_count":7},{"key":"Closed with monetary relief","doc_count":2}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":34,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":34}]}},"company":{"doc_count":34,"company":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","doc_count":5},{"key":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","doc_count":4},{"key":"EQUIFAX, INC.","doc_count":3},{"key":"CITIBANK, N.A.","doc_count":2},{"key":"Early Warning Services, LLC","doc_count":2},{"key":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","doc_count":2},{"key":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","doc_count":2},{"key":"Aargon Agency, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"CCS Financial Services, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"CITIZENS FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"FinCo Services Inc DBA Current","doc_count":1},{"key":"Financial Data Systems","doc_count":1},{"key":"KEYCORP","doc_count":1},{"key":"PENNYMAC LOAN SERVICES, LLC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Rocket Mortgage, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"SANTANDER HOLDINGS USA, INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"SOFI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL","doc_count":1},{"key":"TRUIST FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","doc_count":1}]}},"state":{"doc_count":34,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"NC","doc_count":9},{"key":"FL","doc_count":4},{"key":"CA","doc_count":3},{"key":"GA","doc_count":3},{"key":"MO","doc_count":2},{"key":"NJ","doc_count":2},{"key":"OH","doc_count":2},{"key":"PA","doc_count":2},{"key":"CT","doc_count":1},{"key":"IL","doc_count":1},{"key":"LA","doc_count":1},{"key":"MD","doc_count":1},{"key":"MI","doc_count":1},{"key":"NY","doc_count":1},{"key":"TX","doc_count":1}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":34,"company_public_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","doc_count":17},{"key":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","doc_count":2}]}},"tags":{"doc_count":34,"tags":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Older American","doc_count":4},{"key":"Servicemember","doc_count":3},{"key":"Older American, Servicemember","doc_count":1}]}}},"_meta":{"license":"CC0","last_updated":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","last_indexed":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","total_record_count":16441818,"is_data_stale":false,"has_data_issue":false,"break_points":{"2":[6.591972,"17885312"]}}}