{"took":333,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":15,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7286578","_score":17.251354,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"On XX/XX/XXXX there were six fraudulent transactions in my Chase Safire bank account. ( See Attachment 1 ) The fraudulent transactions were made at an ATM machine, operated by the XXXX XXXX in the XXXX XXXX. I have been using the ATM at this bank for six years. Apparently, someone was able to hack into my account and made six fraudulent transactions during a short period! \nChase must have realized that fraud was being committed because they sent me a message at XXXX XXXX  on XX/XX/XXXX, asking me whether I attempted a withdrawal of {$370.00}. When I saw the message at XXXX XXXX, I replied No. At that time, I was not aware of the five other fraudulent withdrawals. I immediately received a message from Chase saying that my atm card was closed and that I would receive a new card. ( See Attachment 2 ). \nOn XX/XX/XXXX I noticed that in addition to {$370.00} fraudulent transaction, Chase had also credited me for the other five fraudulent charges. ( See Attachment 3 ) So, you can imagine how shocked I was on XX/XX/XXXX when I looked at my account online and discovered that all the fraudulent charges had been re-applied to my account! ( See Attachment 4. ) Of course, I called Chase immediately and they passed me on to the Fraud Department. \n\n\n\n\n\nThere I spoke with XXXX, a supervisor who told me that an investigation had been done, and that since my password was used, I was to be liable for all the charges. She said a letter was sent to me, advising me of the decision. The conversation was very short. When I asked her if she would call me back if we got disconnected. XXXX said, we wont get disconnected, When I asked if there was someone else, I could talk with about this matter, she said I could look that up on XXXX. As of today, I have not received the letter. \nI have had an account with Chase for over 25 years. During most of that time, I have maintained four accounts with an average balance of more than the {$75000.00} minimum balance requirement to receive free checking. Usually more than twice that amount. In the past I have received excellent service from Chase including several warnings about suspicious transactions. As stated above, I even received a warning about these fraudulent transactions. However, in this instance Chase has let me down. The fact that a thief somehow hacked into my account and was able to make six consecutive fraudulent withdrawals and Chase was not able to stop this is outrageous and unacceptable. \nI contend that given the information that I have presented above, Chase should restore all of the charges associated with these fraudulent transactions.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-07-21T18:56:13.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"90026","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7286578","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","date_received":"2023-07-21T18:35:37.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Problem using a debit or ATM card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>Usually</em> more than twice that amount. In the past I have received excellent service from Chase including several <em>warnings</em> <em>about</em> suspicious transactions. As stated above, I even received a <em>warning</em> <em>about</em> these fraudulent transactions. However, in this instance Chase has let me down. The <em>fact</em> that a thief somehow hacked into my account and was able to make six consecutive fraudulent withdrawals and Chase was not able to stop this is outrageous and unacceptable."]},"sort":[17.251354,"7286578"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"15711894","_score":16.52632,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"On XX/XX/year>2025 I received a phone call from my bank US Bank. The phone number was the same phone number as in my contact information for US Bank. They had sent a text, then called after sending me a text stating that my account was hacked from someone n Utah. A woman from The US Bank fraud department asked all the information US bank usually asked me when I have called in the past to their customer service line and the woman from US Bank started informing me. I needed to make withdrawals {$1000.00} at a time and put it in another account in order to show that I was the person making the withdrawals not the hacker in Utah, since this had never happened to me before and since this person that called me knew exactly how much money was in my account and calling from the said Bank phone number I proceeded to folllow her instructions. She told me they were going to start investigating and that my money tat was transferred would be ccesable within two days. I called back US about an hour later after feeling uneasy about this last phone call, I called the same number back, which is US Banks number and someone told me to go to the branch the next day and that the branch would handle it. I subsequently found out that about two months before this happened to me, U.S. Bancorp had a data breach where their customer information was made accessible to hackers. I never received any warning from any emails that alerted me to this fact, I never gave the hacker my Social Security number, but they did know all my account information. Therefore, a fraud investigation was started with US Bank and after about two months, they decided that it was not their fault. It was my fault. They had given me a provisional credit when this first happened because this hacking scheme wiped out my savings account, after the provisional credit I then took the money out of my savings account because it was all the money I had. Mainly because I could not trust going forward that my banking information was safe at US Bank.I then sent a letter on XX/XX/year>2025 to the U.S. Bank fraud department asking that the case be reopened due to the fact that there was a data breach and because their customers were not informed about this issue. I was not on the alerted of the data breach to be aware that my banning information had been hacked. that this was a possibility. Also, this was a U.S. Bank I had talked to a representative from fraud department right after this happened to me on XX/XX/XXXX, & was told I was fourth customer that is had happened to in just a few days.I believe this happened to many customers and that US Bank should be liable for not instructing their customers to be aware that this personal banking information was breached and not expect the provisional credit they had previously given me to be returned.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-09-04T22:51:02.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"87121","tags":"Older American, Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"15711894","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"U.S. BANCORP","date_received":"2025-09-04T22:13:15.000Z","state":"NM","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Problem making or receiving payments"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I never received any <em>warning</em> from any emails that alerted me to this <em>fact</em>, I never gave the hacker my Social Security number, but they did know all my account information. Therefore, a <em>fraud</em> investigation was started with US Bank and after <em>about</em> two months, they decided that it was not their fault. It was my fault."]},"sort":[16.52632,"15711894"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3267571","_score":13.962884,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Hello, My name is XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX has illegally supplied incorrect information to Early Warning Services about my account. Below is my legal team that will be filing the civil suit. Currently there is XXXX in damages as of today from your false reporting from XXXX XXXX XXXX account. Every day the information is falsely reported to my new bank we will hold Early Warning and XXXX XXXX XXXX accountable in larger damage amounts. Calls were recorded prior with your reps by our legal team admitting the record should be removed and was not reported legally. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX Attorney at Law XXXX, XXXX. \nIllinois Office : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX  XXXX, XXXX, IL XXXX Florida Office : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX, FL XXXX Direct Dial : ( XXXX ) XXXX Toll Free : ( XXXX ) XXXX ( XXXX ) Facsimile : ( XXXX ) XXXX E-Mail : XXXX Web : XXXX Sent from my XXXX Begin forwarded message : From : XXXX XXXX XXXX Date : XX/XX/2019 at XXXX XXXX EDT To XXXX Subject : Account : XXXX Dear Early Warnings, I have recently been informed that there is negative information reported by XXXX XXXX XXXX in the file EWS maintains under my Social Security number. I called in to resolve this and explain the circumstances. My checks were canceled due to them missing from my car along with my debut card. No checks were cashed and no money was missing from my XXXX XXXX XXXX account nor was their any fraudulent activity. I do not owe XXXX XXXX XXXX and money in fact they owe me money. You are falsely reporting information without any proof and XXXX XXXX XXXX has admitted that there is no bad debt with their company nor any wrongdoing on my end. I will not engage in your process I will file lawsuit and sue your company for XXXX XXXX USD in damages due to the account at XXXX being frozen over your reporting with XXXX XXXX USD in it. Every day my account is blocked due to your reporting I will hold Early warnings responsible for damages to my clients funds traded in the market. \n\nI am not just contacting you to evolve in a frivolous dispute for you to validate this claim. I am contacting you because you are in violation of many banking regulations and Federal Credit Reporting Act consumer laws : XXXX  XXXX XXXX Sec. 3403. Confidentiality of financial records ( a ) Release of records by financial institutions prohibited ( B ) Release of records upon certification of compliance with chapter Sec. 3410. Customer challenges ( all as such ) Sec. 3412. Use of information ( all as such ) EWS-participating as consumer reporting agency [ ( p ) The term consumer reporting agency that compiles and maintains files on consumers on a nationwide basis means a consumer reporting agency that regularly engages in the practice of assembling or evaluating, and maintaining, for the purpose of furnishing consumer reports to third parties bearing on a consumer 's credit worthiness, credit standing, or credit capacity, each of the following regarding consumers residing nationwide : ] 602. Congressional findings and statement of purpose [ 15 U.S.C. 1681 ] Consumer reporting agencies must correct or delete inaccurate, incomplete, or unverifiable information. Inaccurate, incomplete or unverifiable information must be removed or corrected, usually within 30 days. However, a consumer reporting agency may continue to report information it has verified as accurate. \nA credit report includes information on where you live, how you pay your bills, and whether you've been sued, arrested, or filed for bankruptcy. \n\nMy Report was not sent in the timeframe by law and still has not been received. I made a phone call to get the following information from your support and found the information supplied is illegally supplied to early warnings and also is incorrect. Currently my bank is withholding XXXX XXXX USD and in damages this will be a XXXX XXXX dollar lawsuit due to the funds as it is market trading funds. This is slander and violation of my rights. XXXX XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX will be filing a lawsuit on Monday afternoon if this is not responded to and removed as you are causing my banking with other banks to be effected from false reporting. \n\n\nContributing Reason : Transacting ( or attempting to transact ) with an account in an unauthorized or prohibited manner. \nI have searched far and wide through my documentation with no findings or evidence of any fraudulent transaction XXXX  XXXX XXXX that occurred and their is nothing you should be reporting and no fraud committed. \n\nWhat also disturbs me is that when this account was submitted to my attorney on Friday after checking XXXX  XXXX XXXX owes me {$51.00}.","date_sent_to_company":"2019-06-11T21:52:22.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"33431","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3267571","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Early Warning Services, LLC","date_received":"2019-06-07T18:17:12.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Hello, My name is <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> and <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> has illegally supplied incorrect information to Early <em>Warning</em> Services <em>about</em> my account. Below is my legal team that will be filing the civil suit. Currently there is <em>XXXX</em> in damages as of today from your false reporting from <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> account. Every day the information is falsely reported to my new bank we will hold Early <em>Warning</em> and <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> accountable in larger damage amounts."],"company":["Early <em>Warning</em> Services, LLC"]},"sort":[13.962884,"3267571"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7347845","_score":13.64293,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"After reviewing your response to the complaint that I submitted to the CFPB, I find your response to be grossly incorrect and inadequate. Your response includes assertions that are false, misleading, and completely unresponsive to the facts that I presented in my complaint. \nIn Chases response, you claimed that I stated that my pin was not written down. \nI never stated this. \nYour letter states that we have enclosed copies of the claim letters for your records. \nThere were no claim letters attached. Im beginning to think this is a form letter. Im also thinking that I am communicating with a robot not a person. \nYour letter states that there are undisputed transactions at the same merchant location/terminal with similar dollar amounts. \nYes, I have made numerous withdrawals of money from the same ATM over the past years, but never six consecutive withdrawals at the same time. For example, if I walked down a street with money in my pocket and was robbed by a thief, I would go to the police and file a complaint. If I walked down that same street and was not robbed, I would have nothing to complain about. Right? \nAlso, as soon as I was advised by Chase regarding the {$370.00} fraudulent transaction ( literally minutes after the six fraudulent transactions were posted ), I responded by answering NO to whether I made this transaction. So, Chase was aware that I was disputing the transaction. \nYes, I didnt dispute the other five fraudulent transactions. Because I wasnt aware of them at the time. \nThen you go on to state that we are not able to prove fraud occurred. \nWhat? \nYou already suspected fraud by asking whether I made the withdrawal on XX/XX/XXXX. ( See above. ) Why would anyone make six consecutive withdrawals moments after midnight? ( One of which was flagged by the Chase security system. ) I have never made more than one withdrawal in a day. Not six consecutive withdrawals in a few minutes! In fact, I thought that I wasnt allowed to do this? \nIt seems that the only basis for your decision is that my password was used. In any case, you must be aware of scams that are employed to steal a customers password? I have heard that sometimes copies of an ATM transaction can be illegally made from an ATM machine. \nWhy should I, a Chase customer for over 25 years with six accounts maintaining an average balance of at least {$150.00}, XXXX a month, be held solely responsible for this apparent fraud. \nTHIS IS OUTRAGEOUS! \n\nHERE IS THE RESPONSE THAT i RECEIVED FROM CHASE BANK We aim to give exceptional service and are sorry if we did not meet this goal when you contacted us about the ATM withdrawals from your account. We will address your concerns about your customer service experience internally. We reviewed your claim numbers XXXX and XXXX on XX/XX/2023, for the ATM transactions totaling {$940.00}. We denied the claims because we show the transactions were authorized and were completed without any invalid PIN attempts. You also stated your PIN was not written down. There are no signs of account takeover, and there are undisputed transactions at the same merchant location/terminal with similar dollar amounts. We are not able to prove fraud occurred. After reviewing our denial, we did not change our decision. We can not credit your account for the loss. We have enclosed copies of the claim letters for your records. The security of your information is especially important to us. We strongly recommend protecting your debit card, checks, and other account information from theft and unauthorized use. You can see suggestions for safeguarding your information in the Deposit Account Agreement and at chase.com/security. You were provided a copy of the agreement when you opened the account. You can review the current agreement by signing into your account on chase.com. \n\nMY INITIAL COMPLAINT LETTER SUBMITTED TO THE CFPB ON XX/XX/2023 XX/XX/2023 Chase by Mail XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, OH XXXX Re : Account Number XXXX To Whom it May Concern : On XX/XX/XXXX there were six fraudulent transactions in my Chase Safire bank account. ( See Attachment 1 ) The fraudulent transactions were made at an ATM machine, operated by the XXXX XXXX in the XXXX XXXX. I have been using the ATM at this bank for six years. Apparently, someone was able to hack into my account and made six fraudulent transactions during a short period! \nChase must have realized that fraud was being committed because they sent me a message at XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX, asking me whether I attempted a withdrawal of {$370.00}. When I saw the message at XXXX XXXX, I replied No. At that time, I was not aware of the five other fraudulent withdrawals. I immediately received a message from Chase saying that my atm card was closed and that I would receive a new card. ( See Attachment 2 ). \nOn XX/XX/XXXX I noticed that in addition to {$370.00} fraudulent transaction, Chase had also credited me for the other five fraudulent charges. ( See Attachment 3 ) So, you can imagine how shocked I was on XX/XX/XXXX when I looked at my account online and discovered that all the fraudulent charges had been re-applied to my account! ( See Attachment 4. ) Of course, I called Chase immediately and they passed me on to the Fraud Department. \n\n\n\n\n\nThere I spoke with XXXX, a supervisor who told me that an investigation had been done, and that since my password was used, I was to be liable for all the charges. She said a letter was sent to me, advising me of the decision. The conversation was very short. When I asked her if she would call me back if we got disconnected. XXXX said, we wont get disconnected, When I asked if there was someone else, I could talk with about this matter, she said I could look that up on XXXX. As of today, I have not received the letter. \nI have had an account with Chase for over 25 years. During most of that time, I have maintained four accounts with an average balance of more than the {$75000.00} minimum balance requirement to receive free checking. Usually more than twice that amount. In the past I have received excellent service from Chase including several warnings about suspicious transactions. As stated above, I even received a warning about these fraudulent transactions. However, in this instance Chase has let me down. The fact that a thief somehow hacked into my account and was able to make six consecutive fraudulent withdrawals and Chase was not able to stop this is outrageous and unacceptable.\n\nI contend that given the information that I have presented above, Chase should restore all of the charges associated with these fraudulent transactions. \nSincerely, XXXX XXXX Attachments ( NOT ATTACHED )","date_sent_to_company":"2023-08-03T18:07:08.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"90026","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7347845","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","date_received":"2023-08-03T17:35:12.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Problem using a debit or ATM card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>Usually</em> more than twice that amount. In the past I have received excellent service from Chase including several <em>warnings</em> <em>about</em> suspicious transactions. As stated above, I even received a <em>warning</em> <em>about</em> these fraudulent transactions. However, in this instance Chase has let me down. The <em>fact</em> that a thief somehow hacked into my account and was able to make six consecutive fraudulent withdrawals and Chase was not able to stop this is outrageous and unacceptable."]},"sort":[13.64293,"7347845"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"11162088","_score":12.593716,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX XXXX ID : XXXX Date of Birth : XX/XX/XXXX SSN : XXXX ID Type : Driver 's License ID Number : XXXX Address : XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX Early Warning Services , LLC XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX MY ACCOUNT WAS VERIFIED AS ACCURATE WHEN IN FACT IT IS NOT ACCURATE To Whom It May Concern, I am writing in regards to the recent validation of the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  account and any other items I disputed on my file. I want to bring to your attention that these accounts were verified as accurate when, in reality, I know for a fact that it is not true. It is essential that all consumer agency reports are 100 % accurate, and I find it absurd that this company has validated these accounts that are opened without my consent and knowledge, including the unauthorized activity on accounts that I informed your agency about without providing any proof. The specific items that have been newly validated on my file are accounts I've never opened and transactions I don't recognize on specified accounts ( refer to documents from previous dispute ). This information is inaccurate, fraudulent, and wasn't authorized by my authority, and it has been validated as accurate when in fact I know you have not done the necessary diligence. \n\n\nI can provide documentation for the previous dispute that I submitted. Additionally, I would like to know what evidence your representatives used to verify this account, as I do not believe they can validate it correctly. Please answer the following questions to shed light on your investigation process : What certified documents were reviewed during your investigation? \n\n\nKindly provide a complete copy of all information transmitted to the data furnisher as part of the investigation. \n\n\nWhat were the costs incurred by your company to obtain the necessary documents for the investigation? \n\n\nPlease provide proof of the timely procurement of the certified documents. \n\n\nDid your representatives directly contact any agents of the company reporting the information to confirm its accuracy? \n\n\nIf yes, please provide the following details : a. Name of the person contacted b. Date of the conversation c. Duration of the conversation d. Their position within the company e. Telephone number used for the communication f. Name and position of the employee of your company who spoke to the above party g. How long has that employee been employed by your company? h. What formal training was provided to this employee to investigate items of this kind? i. Was there any email or written communication between your company and the above party? If so, please provide copies of all correspondence. \nThis fraudulent debt has significantly impacted my banking relationships and is hurting my ability to do business with banks I have yet to personally open an account with. However, I as a consumer brought it to your companys attention that there's unauthorized fraudulent accounts on my file that I don't recognize but your company and the furnishers are stating it's verified just because my personal information is attached to it, this is extremely absurd. For whosoever verified this negative information solely based on that is wrong for identity theft is defined as the fraudulent acquisition and use of a PERSON 'S PRIVATE INFORMATION usually for financial gain. I'm informing early warning services, a consumer agency I didn't even know existed otherwise this would of been brought to my attention much sooner of such activity taking place with my information and would of been immediately handled, that the negative items disputed are accounts I don't recognize and did not open and accounts that have fraudulent transaction I did not authorize or aware that took place. \n\nIn addition, after taking the time to understand this agency and people in the same financial crisis where their information was misused, 15 USC 1681 ( d ) specifies that any \" person, '' including corporations like Early Warning Services, may not procure a consumer report on any consumer unless it is clearly disclosed to the consumer that an investigative consumer report may be made. This disclosure must be in writing or mailed to the consumer no later than three days after the date on which the report was requested ( inquiry date or first transaction date ). I, as a consumer, did not receive any written disclosure from Early Warning Services regarding the creation of a consumer report detailing my banking history, transactions, account overdraft status, and overall banking record. If so, consumers in my situation would be aware of what's going on behind the scenes, just like the three credit bureaus. Consumers are able to track and keep up to date with their credit information which is why I've been able to catch inaccurate information on my credit reports and have the ability to freeze my information which is amazing, I wish your agency would do the same. To validate the legitimacy of your claim that I provided written authorization for the creation of such a report and it was clearly disclosed to me as a consumer, I request that you provide a certified mail tracking number and a return receipt showing my name and address as the recipient. \n\nIn light of the inaccurate verification of these negative items, the validation of my written authorization and it being disclosed to me as a consumer for creation of such a report, I demand that these disputed items be removed from my file as it's hurting my ability to partner with banks as a consumer. Failing to do so, I will have no choice but to take legal action to rectify this matter. I further remind you that, as in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. XXXX ( XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX, XXXX ), you may be liable for your willful non-compliance. Failure on your behalf to provide a copy of any alleged documentation or other instrument bearing my signature will result in a small claims action against your company. I will be seeking {$5000.00} in damages for the following : 1. ) Defamation 2. ) Negligent Enablement of Identity Fraud 3. ) Violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act I look forward to your prompt response and the swift resolution of this dispute. Please acknowledge receipt of this letter and provide a written confirmation of the actions taken to address this issue. \n\n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2024-12-16T04:02:03.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"10473","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"11162088","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Early Warning Services, LLC","date_received":"2024-12-16T03:41:28.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Information belongs to someone else"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> ID : <em>XXXX</em> Date of Birth : XX/XX/<em>XXXX</em> SSN : <em>XXXX</em> ID Type : Driver 's License ID Number : <em>XXXX</em> Address : <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> XXXXXXXX <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> XXXXXXXX Early <em>Warning</em> Services , LLC <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em>, <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> XXXXXXXX <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> ( <em>XXXX</em> ) <em>XXXX</em> MY ACCOUNT WAS VERIFIED AS ACCURATE WHEN IN <em>FACT</em> IT IS NOT ACCURATE To Whom It May Concern, I am writing in regards to the recent validation of the <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em>  account and any other items I disputed on my file."],"company":["Early <em>Warning</em> Services, LLC"]},"sort":[12.593716,"11162088"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6377121","_score":10.0255575,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"This experience has been with Citizen 's Bank. On XX/XX/XXXX, I noticed XXXX purchases from my checking account that I did not make that had posted on XX/XX/XXXX. They were for the amounts of {$20.00}, {$20.00}, {$21.00}, {$38.00}, {$31.00}, {$15.00}, {$16.00}, and {$29.00}. All these purchases were made in a different state than I live, at a XXXX 4.5 hours away. I immediately called the bank and reported this activity. I filed a claim and cancelled both cards on the account. I asked to close that particular account, as I felt this account was compromised, but was told not to close the account, as the bank would need a place to return the funds after the completion of the investigation. I also transferred the remaining balance of that account to a different checking account within Citizens, to prevent further loss of my money. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I received a notice that my account was overdrawn, and upon reviewing my online statements, I found 4 more fraudulent transactions that had posted on XX/XX/XXXX in the amounts of {$6.00}, {$26.00}, {$13.00}, and {$19.00}. These purchases were made at the same XXXX in many hours from where I live. I called and filed a claim for these purchases as well. I asked again to close this account, and was told, again that I should not do. An alternative was offered to place my account in a credit-only status, so that no money could be withdrawn from the account. I was then transferred to the collections department, who informed me that placed my account in a credit-only status, even though they usually only do this for accounts that are in collections ( my account was not in collections ). She told me that she would make a note in my account that I had an active fraud investigation pending, as the reason for this and informed me that after the investigation had resolved, I would need to call the collections department back and request termination of this status. We had money deposited that resolved the overdrawn status of the account. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I still had not heard any news about these claims. My husband, who is also on the account, received notice that our account was, again, overdrawn because even though the account was supposed to be in a credit-only status, Citizen 's bank allowed pre-authorized bills to be deducted from the account. He called the bank and asked them to charge back the amount, as nothing was to come from this account, but he was told that there was nothing they could do. I called them back to inquire about this, as well as the claims I had submitted almost a month ago, and was told that not only was the account in normal, active status, but my claims had been denied, as the bank felt there was \" no error. \". I had never been contacted regarding this and they were unable to provide any information as to why the bank felt the claims were unfounded. The customer service representative, scheduled a phone call with the fraud department, but they never called me. \n\nI made another call, later that day, letting them know that I never received a call, and asked to be transferred to the fraud department, supervisor, or given a corporate number. The customer service representative told me that the fraud department does not take calls and the only thing he could do is request another call. He denied that there was someone else that could help or a corporate number that I could call. I tried to express my frustration and without warning he placed me on hold and never returned to the call -- the call was terminated on their end. At this point, I realized that my money is not safe in this bank, and I transferred all my money from the other accounts I held with them to an external bank, after which I was locked out of my online banking account. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I called again, and was able to speak to a customer service supervisor. She was also unable to be of much help, only requesting, yet another appointment with the fraud department and removing an overdraw fee ( after my account had been wrongfully overdrawn ). She was unable to address the fact that I had still, not even once, been contacted to discuss my claim. She gaslighted me, telling me that accounts are not placed in credit only status, per customer request, even though this is what occurred. She also told me that it was not true that I should not have closed this account, as the funds could have been placed in a different account. I assured her that my account of events is true, and asked if an internal investigation could be performed, since all of these calls are recorded. She replied that no one is able to listen to these calls, as they are only for training. Adding insult to injury, she was apathetic to the ways in which I was misled and wronged by the bank. Stating only, \" I have documented your displeasure. '' When I asked what this documentation does, she confirmed that it would not help to resolve my situation and would potentially help lead to internal changes in bank policy. \n\nNot only, had I been failed by the bank by not notifying me of suspicious spending patterns, I had also been failed on many levels by almost each person that I spoke with, by receiving incorrect, and conflicting information, and I was being held responsible for punitive charges caused by their mistakes. Had they closed my account either of the initial 2 times that I asked, or actually held my account in credit-only status, my account would not have been overdrawn. The fraudulent charges could have also been caught after the first episode. They also never even contacted me to inform me of the status of my claims. In trying to resolve these issues over many, many phone calls, there also seemed to be no way to speak with anyone who could take steps different than what has been repeatedly done to actually solve the problem at hand. I finally asked the supervisor to close all my other accounts with Citizen 's bank. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, As I was preparing to file a police report regarding the theft of funds from my account, I noticed 4 additional fraudulent charges from the same XXXX several hours away. Those charges posted on XX/XX/XXXX and were in the amounts {$33.00}, {$22.00}, {$47.00}, and {$5.00}. I called and reported this activity. I also filed a police report with the XXXX XXXX Police.","date_sent_to_company":"2022-12-29T05:58:07.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"58078","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"6377121","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CITIZENS FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.","date_received":"2022-12-29T04:19:55.000Z","state":"ND","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Problem using a debit or ATM card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["She told me that she would make a note in my account that I had an active <em>fraud</em> investigation pending, as the reason for this and informed me that after the investigation had resolved, I would need to call the collections department back and request termination of this status. We had money deposited that resolved the overdrawn status of the account. \n\nOn XX/XX/<em>XXXX</em>, I still had not heard any news <em>about</em> these claims."]},"sort":[10.0255575,"6377121"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13310729","_score":9.335003,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX  received a message on his desktop XXXX XXXX computer -to call XXXX  technical support. The reason: he was denied access to our accountXXXXThe phone number was provided XXXXNot certain what to do, he called me for help.  I never thought twice about the authenticity of the message & told papa that Ill take care of itXXXXHe did not think about turning off the computer, neither did IXXXXI called the number.\\XXXX XXXX  answered the call. He represented himself as XXXXXXXX XXXX  Support employee.  His code was XXXX.  When I told him about the problem, his response was: dont worryXXXX XXXX Support will solve the problem.XXXXHe told me that our computer had been hacked.  He also told me that I have to report this info to FTC & provided the link-website of FTC.  I did just that, without thinking twice.  XXXXI also went to a website (I dont remember the domain name and the computer has since been wiped) to install some software so they could fix the computer.XXXXOnce on the FTC website, I was prompt to provide personal info, mine & papa, such as: SS numbers, the name of the bank, 401-K info, address, telephone numbers, etc. \\nIve never done anything like that in the past. Always knew that I should not share personal info with no one.  My reasoning was that I was reporting to the Government Agency. As soon as I finished that task, the phone rang.\\n\\nThe person on the other end presented himself, as XXXX XXXX XXXX from FTC. He said that our Network has been compromised & he has been assigned to our case.  XXXXAlso, since our telephones are compromised, XXXX  will provide a secure line every time hell call us & that everything should be kept secret. He wanted our computer run 24 hrs for as long as necessary.XXXXHe had said that there are 9 hackers-XXXX XXXX XXXX  Then, there was info on the screen-9 lines, a few column each, which said: XXXX XXXX.  I was outraged & in disbelief. This is the worst crime imaginable.  I remember asking him: when they are caught, will they be put behind bars?XXXXTo make a long story short, I trusted him & did my best to complyXXXXHe told me that we have to do a duplicate transaction, such as wire transfer, so the hackers wont get their hands on the fundsXXXXAttempted Money Movements Stopped by Chase Fraud TeamXXXXWith screen mirroring software now installed on XXXX  / XXXX XXXX First they initiated a wire transfer on their own in the amount of $XXXXThe receiving partyXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXIt was stopped by Chase the same day-XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXChase did not notify us. If they did, it may have had changed our minds about following XXXX XXXX  instructions.XXXXAt this time if they had been active in warning the XXXX  about the fact this is usually fraud and they should talk to someone they trust, not just someone on a phone who says trust us, that would be better than what happened.XXXX XXXX XXXXWith the online approach stopped the fraudsters now trained the XXXX  to go to the branch to do this in person. Now the fraudsters knew the balance in the account was greater than $XXXX  they increased the amount of the wire.XXXXThis time it was in the amount of XXXX  The recipient XXXX XXXX XXXXThis wire transfer was stopped by a Chase employee from the fraud Dept. They called, went through security protocols, asked XXXX  to think about it and call back.  She called back and Chase had stopped the wire already. XXXXChase spoke to the XXXX, they did not challenge why yesterday they urgently needed to send XXXX to . -XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and today need to send $XXXX  to XXXX XXXX XXXX  Combined that is more than their assets at Chase.  Why was yesterdays urgent wire forgotten about not so urgent today and this wire that would mean they could no longer fund the yesterdays wire now urgent today?XXXX XXXX XXXXOn the Third day we went back to our branch and initiated the same XXXXThe third one, on XXXX XXXX, for the same amount, went through.XXXXWhen we came home XXXX XXXX (FTC) kept calling, as usual.  He wanted me to scan the last page of the wire transfer & forward it to him.  I have never used the scanner before & did not do it right.  So, he did not get it & seemed desperate, to me.XXXX XXXX kept calling every 10 min & tried to convince me to do it again, but I refused.  I told him that papa is not feeling well & that I have to attend to him. It was, actually, the truthXXXXHe kept begging me to scan it again & forward it to him, I guess- it was important to him to have the proof that we initiated wire transferXXXXIt was the last straw that broke the camels back. I, finally, woke up from being hypnotized by this scammer & stopped answering his callsXXXXChase fraud department called again and the man on the call was less diligent than the prior day and approved the wire.  He never mentioned or noticed the cancelled wires from the prior two daysXXXXWhile Chase spoke to the XXXX, they did not challenge why yesterday Chase stopped this urgently needed XXXX to XXXX XXXX XXXX  and why the documents showing why it was urgent could not be provided.  This wire was 90% of an XXXX  couples combined assets at Chase.  Why was due diligence yesterday strong and due diligence today cursory?XXXXPost Wire being sent XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXOn the evening of XXXX XXXX XXXX the wire was shown as Pending in the Chase systems.XXXXAs soon as papa felt better, I started calling XXXX XXXX XXXX  -different departments. This time, I got the telephone numbers off the Net.XXXXWhat I should have done is- to call Chase, but I was ashamed for misleading them, to put it mildly.\\n\\nThe first call was to Wire Transfers dept at XXXX. The number- XXXX The employee name-XXXX. I told him about wire transfer & that there is a problem & I have to investigate, so, please freeze the funds for the time being, dont release themXXXXHe was not interested in any information about the transfer & I was told that because I am not XXXX  customer, they are not able to helpXXXXThe next call was to Suspicious Activities dept.  I am not sure, if it was XXXX, or some government agency at XXXX  The name of the rep.XXXXThe last person at XXXX- XXXX  at XXXX. The same response- not their customer.\\n\\nI then spoke to XXXX  who called Chase bank and with persistence got them to issue a recall request at around XXXX  the same evening.  This was logged as XXXX case number for recall request\\n(See Appendix 4 for copy of email detailing the recall.)XXXXAt this point the money was still at Chase but they refused to stop the wire.XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (daughter and son in law)XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  went to the Chase branch. XXXX did a second recall because initially the recall was done as XXXX XXXX but XXXX XXXX signed the transfer.XXXX XXXX XXXX  acknowledged the recall request on XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX spent the afternoon at XXXX XXXX XXXX  home in XXXX  reformatting the computer so it was no longer a threat vector.XXXX XXXX XXXX  requested a hold harmless letter.  Chase sent that from XXXX, not XXXX.  XXXX  initiated the Wire, XXXX, is joint account holder.  XXXX XXXX XXXX are having challenges matching these two data points up  only learned on the branch visit on XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  went to the Chase branch. XXXXApparently the hold harmless letter was never reconciled with the wire as they were done in different namesXXXXChase should have executed this hold harmless letter correctly but failed to do soXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX went to the Chase branch and met with XXXX.  XXXX  called the central team and said XXXX XXXX XXXX said recipient is entitled to funds and is still investigatingXXXXOther Thoughts from XXXXnBureaucracy- its joint account.  Because some things were done by one account holder and some by the other XXXX  cant match this up easily.XXXXChase should know this and have prepared the Hold Harmless from XXXX XXXX  to avoid this confusion!\\n\\nThat person, who was in touch with us constantly-XXXX XXXX, used numerous phones & locations. He also called constantly even after XXXX XXXX which is an indicator (in my mind) that they did not receive the money right away. He wanted to get the last page of the transfer, but did not get it, (I assume) XXXX  released the funds anyway.\\n\\nThe last call (probably from XXXX XXXX) was about a week to 10 days later (around XXXX XXXX).  The caller ID showed Chase Bank. I did not pick it up. I have spoken to Chase the same day & there was no reason for them to contact me. So, I called the Chase- Security Dept. & asked them if they were trying to contact me. The answer was noXXXXI have the log of the phone calls that we received from XXXX.  Does Imperia need that?\\n\\nAny questions that he has, Ill be happy to answer. Anything that would be helpful in the\\nongoing investigation.XXXXSorry for being late with my info..XXXXHave a good night everyone.\\n\\nRegards to XXXX  from papa & meXXXXnAppendix 2\\nWire Notification EmailXXXXnChase \\n\\tXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXnto mXXXX XXXXFrom Account Ending in XXXXXXXXTransaction Number : XXXX\\n\\nDear Customer:XXXXnWe sent your wire transfer referenced above, as you requested.\\n\\nIf you have questions, please call us at XXXX for personal accounts or XXXX for business accountsXXXXSincerely,\\nConsumer & XXXX XXXXE-mail Security Information\\n\\nEmail intended for: XXXXIf you're concerned about the authenticity of this message, please visit chase.com/CustomerService for options on how to contact us.XXXXABOUT THIS MESSAGE\\nThis service email gives you updates and information about your Chase relationship.\\n\\nAppendix 1\\nInitial Chase Wire Fraud Hold\\n\\nChase Fraud Alert \\n\\XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXAccount updateXXXXPlease call us about your Wire Transfer\\XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX:\\nWe placed a hold on your wire as part of our internal review process. For your security, please call us at XXXX to confirm your wire details. Well cancel your wire on XXXX if we cant reach you or dont hear from you.\\nWe need the fastest way to contact you.\\nSign in and make sure your personal profile includes your mobile phone number.\\n\\nSecurity tip:\\nChase will never ask you for your account number or password in an email.\\nSecurely access your accounts in the Chase Mobile app or at chase.com.\\n\\nEMAIL SECURITY INFORMATION\\n\\nEmail intended for: XXXX XXXXf you have concerns about the authenticity of this message, please visit chase.com/CustomerService for options on how to contact usXXXXABOUT THIS MESSAGE\\n\\nThe Chase Mobile app is available for select mobile devices. Message and data rates may apply.\\n\\nThis service email gives you updates and information about your Chase relationship.\\n\\nChase cannot guarantee the delivery of alerts and notifications. Wireless or internet service provider outages or other circumstances could delay them. You can always check chase.com or the Chase Mobile app for the status of your accounts including your latest account balances and transaction details.\\n\\nTo protect your personal information, Chase won't ask for confidential information in an email.\\n\\nYour privacy is important to us. See our online Security Center to learn how to protect your information.\\n\\nJPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. Member FDIC\\n\\n 2024 JPMorgan Chase & CoXXXX XXXX\\nContemporaneous Email Notes of Chase Recall Request\\n\\n---------- Forwarded message ---------\\nFrom: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXnSubject: Re: fraud chase\\nTo: 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 XXXXWire Research said the money is still in XXXX  but they are refusing to return it\\nChase Claims does not consider this fraud. I am escalating it. On the phone waiting for a supervisor.\\n\\nWire Research - XXXX  is the guy there- claims they are initiating another recall.\\n\\nThey seem to think that this is our responsibility.  My parents are XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXnd this was done under duress! The branch did not pick up on this and they should have so I hold them responsible. I am a contact and have access to the account- they had declined an online transfer right before that and suspected fraud but did not notify me when it was XXXX!  I hold them responsible too.\\n\\nPlease let me know what we need to do here. I am grateful thank you.XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXI have escalated this to the Supervisor of the Chase Claims Department- XXXX. They are proceeding with initiating another wire recall and are in touch with XXXX XXXX XXXX who is requiring a Hold Harmless letter. Chase is sending that today. I have been told to follow up in two business days.\\n\\nUsually XXXX  responds within a day.\\n\\nPlease let us know what you find.\"","date_sent_to_company":"2025-05-02T11:21:58.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Domestic (US) money transfer","zip_code":"11229","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13310729","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","date_received":"2025-05-02T11:07:01.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["If they did, it may have had changed our minds <em>about</em> following <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em>  instructions.XXXXAt this time if they had been active in <em>warning</em> the <em>XXXX</em>  <em>about</em> the <em>fact</em> this is <em>usually</em> <em>fraud</em> and they should talk to someone they trust, not just someone on a phone who says trust us, that would be better than what happened.<em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> XXXXWith the online approach stopped the fraudsters now trained the <em>XXXX</em>  to go to the branch to do this in person."],"issue":["<em>Fraud</em> or scam"]},"sort":[9.335003,"13310729"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6736230","_score":8.651159,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"Office of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) 1700 G Street NW.,\nWashington, DC\nDC 20552\nThis is to complain against the Bank of America\nURGENCY: HIGH IMPORTANCE: HIGH\n[WITHOUT PREJUDICE]\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX.\n I would like to draw your attention to XXXX XXXX XXXX - I had sent my complaint letter to Bank of America, in which I clearly stated how this scam has affected me personally, psychologically and financially.\nI am afraid I have had to go through so much \"bureaucracy\" thus far in order to catch their attention to my concerns. This really doesn't show their complaints department in a good light, to say the least; and certainly, does not contribute tomyoverall satisfaction and peace of mind. My complaint is against the bank that did not do its job properly (could not prevent/foreseen fraud and could not conduct a proper investigation) and not against the vulnerable customer who fell victim and lost all the savings due to the misconduct of the bank.\nI feel very distressed and cheated, all because no one took action immediately and\npractice their duty of care, therefore I only request what I believe to be rightfully mine, as all institutions were more than negligent in protecting my account and handling the complaints. I comprehensively provided explanations and proof to my claim, even so, Bank of America never acknowledge my complaint, therefore, I have approached you CFPB and I would like to receive your assistance on this matter.\nGeneral Obligation:\nCommencing on or around XXXX XXXX XXXX I fell victim to two multi-layered scam operations run by hackers which involved me making deposits for a total amount of XXXX XXXX from my Bank of America account to fraudulent investment firms.\nWhen determining whats reasonable and fair, we should focus on the issue of liability; common queries include, but are not limited to, the following (i) whether Bank of America did not take notice of any rule, law, or regulation, and/or possibly missed any material elements of the relevant bylaws or codes of conduct, that may have prevented them from protecting my financial safety; (ii) whether by virtue of Bank of Americas custodianship over my funds or by its control over them, they owed a fiduciary duty to the me and if so, whether that duty was breached; (iii) whether Bank of America promoted the transaction(s) in question despite being aware of the\n \nnature of the transaction(s) in question (iv) whether Bank of America was in compliance with its own policies and procedures; (v) whether Bank of America owed duties to myself, what the scope of those duties was, and whether Bank of America did not uphold those duties; (vi) whether Bank of Americas conduct was unfair; and (vii) whether Bank of America has within its power the ability to, and should, compensate me for the harm that has befallen me.\nUpon identification of such unusual or suspicious activity, it is crucial that the relevant staff member adequately describe the factors making an activity or transaction suspicious, thoroughly depict the extent and nature of this activity and properly communicate to the customer that such activity meets the relevant criteria of fraud.\nIn providing its services to a customer, a financial institution is required by law to exercise the care and skill of a diligent, prudent banker. In this case, this means that the payment service provider should not turn a blind eye to known facts pointing to a real possibility that their customer is being scammed. In other words, Bank of America must have had special knowledge of what was occurring or been alerted to a real possibility of fraud taking place. The financial institution must have known or reasonably ought to have known that I was dealing with a scammer.\nGranted, there is room for diversity of view insofar as reasonableness is concerned. Indeed, there is a sense in which the standard of care of the reasonable person involves in its application a subjective element.\nHowever, it must be remembered that the correct test is always reasonable care in all circumstances, not average care. The fact that most people behave in a certain way may be good evidence that the conduct is reasonable, but this is not necessarily the case. Although reasonableness is a very fluid concept, all of the evidence suggests that Bank of America did not foresee the fraud and disregarded even the most obvious dangers in this respect.\nSituations do tend to repeat themselves and it is advisable to examine previous outcomes to see how the standard of the reasonable person should be applied, and that lessons can be learnt from the errors of the past.\nApropos of the fluidity of the concept of reasonableness, all Bank of America has done in this regard is set up a dichotomy of having or not having the legal obligation under consideration, however, that does not go one-inch toward explaining why various regulatory authorities, has maintained that financial institutions can, and should, protect consumers using their systems, advanced technologies, and rich experience.\nBank of America is obliged to take some action if it is sufficiently aware of a real possibility that a fraud may be being perpetuated. If you don't question its customers instructions or raise the possibility of a scam with the customer in these circumstances, it may be liable if the red flags indicate the customer is:\n particularly vulnerable, or\n\n if the possibility of fraud was serious or real, not just suspected.\nThere are some recommendations to organisations for protecting customers from financial harm that might occur as a result of fraud or financial abuse; and gives guidance on how to recognise customers who might be at risk, how to assess the potential risks to the individual and how to take the necessary actions to prevent or minimise financial harm.\nThese recommendations are established as a general principle, the organisation should deliver a service that:\n1) Takes a proactive approach to minimising risks, impact and incidences of financial harm and it sets out systems and tools for the prevention and detection of fraud and financial abuse. As a general point, it says organisations should ensure that all systems are developed using technologies and methodologies that are effective in the prevention of fraud and financial abuse, through authorised and unauthorised payments, thereby minimising the risk of financial harm to customers. As regards to the detection of fraud and financial abuse, it says the organisation:\nA) should have measures in place across all payment channels and products to detect suspicious transactions or activities that might indicate fraud or financial abuse. It then lists the following examples of suspicious activity on customer accounts:\na. multiple cheque books;\nb. sudden increased spending;\nc. transfers to other accounts;\nd. multiple password attempts;\ne. logins from new devices, multiple geographical locations;\nf. sudden changes to the operation of the account; Unusual transactions are transactions whose amount, characteristics and frequency bear no relation to the economic activity of the customer, exceed normal market parameters or have no apparent legal justification.\ng. a withdrawal or payment for a large amount;\nh. a payment or series of payments to a new payee;\ni. financial activity that matches a known method of fraud or financial abuse.\nB) organisations should have a process in place to ensure that staff make contact with the customer to verify the financial activity, challenge its authenticity, explain the nature of the suspected or detected fraud and discuss an appropriate plan of action.\nI am deeply convinced that the disastrous results that I have previously elaborated upon will continue to ensue if no responsibility is adopted by Bank of America in relation to this matter. I have also thoroughly detailed why they cannot simply dismiss this problem by strictly adhering to legal technicalities which, after careful reflection, struck me as being nothing more than self-\n  \ninterest. Indeed, it seems to me utterly unfair to disregard fragile, sensitive, and vulnerable consumers who are afflicted by such allegedly malevolent acts, thereby keeping an unjust status-quo that is corrupting our society at its core.\nConclusion:\nBased on my analysis, and as confirmed by various authorities concerned with such matters, there is abundant evidence that forward-thinking financial institutions ought to take reasonable steps to forestall fraud, or at least mitigate its risk by using an effective risk management system, demonstrating their undisputed ability to responsibly and pre-emptively respond to questionable transactions in the digital arena. The use of such systems, largely based on newly\n \nadopted technologies aimed at effectively navigating the evolving threat landscape, is only one of a number of possible endeavours undertaken in this connection, alongside the application of past knowledge and experience related to popular fraudulent practices.\nBank of Americas non-observance of the fundamental principles of justice  that is, to completely overlook and not even remotely try to mitigate the suffering of vulnerable consumers is inexcusable given the size of the establishment and the vast resources at its disposal as the direct result of the patronage of clients like myself.\nIn summary, I respectively ask your organisation to consider my points, given your personal and companywide obligation to provide a fair and reasonable investigation into the complaint.\nI look forward to your input and would gladly cooperate to reach a fair and reasonable outcome. Thank you.\nXXXX XXXX\nTHE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK\n \nPage 1 of 7\nXXXX XXXX XXXX Bank of America XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX NC XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  Re: Demand Letter\nAttn: Claims/Fraud Dept.\nDear Sir/Madam,\nFor negotiation purposes only, without effect as to any and all rights\n  The goal of this letter is twofold: first, it aims to establish that a duty of care was breached, inasmuch as you have failed to perform adequate due diligence or/and not acted in a reasonable and prudent manner to prevent foreseeable substantial damages I suffered as a result of a fraud [ 1]. Second, it shall serve as formal written demand for reimbursement based on the aforementioned grounds, among others.\nA very comprehensive analysis of fraud prevention suggests that by processing atypical, non-routine transactions, and/or by being aware of other fraudulent schemes similar to the one alleged herein and/or ignorance of obvious warning signs of fraud, you engaged in/ is a pattern or a practice of a wrongful and negligent conduct which provided substantial assistance to advance the commission of a fraud that resulted in my financial and psychological damages. The facts and details concerning the actions in question are set forth hereunder.\nOVERVIEW\n Commencing on or about XXXX XXXX XXXX, I fell victim to a multilayered scam operation orchestrated Hackers (the Scammer), all of which aim at contributing to the goal of robbing and defrauding innocent people.\n Money was transferred from my account via debit card, and through an intermediary named XXXX  in the\ntotal amount of XXXX XXXX utilizing your services.\n This letter shall thrust into the spotlight, inter alia, the increasingly important role financial institutions play in\nthe fight against financial crime and fraud, and the pressing need for higher levels of supervision and vigilance\nwithin your organization.\n Additionally, it is vital that you will immediately take all actions within your power to remedy the situation,\nwhether by raising chargeback in respect of the transactions in question or reimburse me and credit my account, for the full amount of these payments, in the total amount of XXXX XXXX\n1 FCA: A more effective approach to combatting financial crime XXXX XXXX XXXX 1\n   \nPage 2 of 7 XXXX XXXX XXXX   Heres an indisputable fact: had you looked at the wider circumstances surrounding the above-referenced transactions, this illicit transfer of wealth could have been prevented.\n Executing transactions without proper authority is not only a severe regulatory offense but also an irresponsible and reckless disregard of the customers financial safety.\n Against this background, and without derogating any of my rights, I hereby hold you liable for financial and emotional harm as well as medical problems relating to this victimization and demand that you reimburse my account in full within 10 days from the date of this letter.\nINTRODUCTION\nFinancial crimes and fraud investigations often involve a high degree of sophistication, complexity, and sensitiveness to detail. Accordingly, this letter aims to address the issue at hand as profoundly and fairly as possible, by taking into consideration contextual regulations, laws, and bylaws, as well as guidance, standards and rules promoted by supervisory authorities, relevant codes of practice and (where suitable) what was good industry practice (GIP) at all times relevant hereto. The allegations contained herein are predicated either upon knowledge with respect to myself and my own experience, or upon facts obtained through investigations conducted by qualified third parties. I strongly believe that substantive evidence in support of the allegations set forth herein will be found after an appropriate opportunity for discovery. Key facts supporting the allegations contained herein are known only to the Scammer or/and are exclusively within their control.\nI did not know, and through the exercise of reasonable diligence could not have discovered, the fraud that was being perpetrated upon myself by the Scammer. Fraud is commonly conceptualized as withholding from the weaker party in a financial transaction information which is necessary to make an informed, rational or autonomous decision.\nIn this regard, even access to adequate information is insufficient to achieve complete autonomy. A complication here is that the weaker party might have trouble analyzing the data at hand sufficiently well to identify fraudulent schemes. A reasonable solution is that financial institutions would be required to promote transparent communication in which they track the understanding of its customers.\nThe false representations and omissions made by the Scammer have a tendency or capacity to deceive victims, such as myself, into unwittingly providing funds that fueled the Scammers fraudulent scheme and therefore are, by their very nature immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to consumersall at once.\nAs a result of the Scammers deceptive practices, I was deceived into transferring my funds to them. The false statements of material facts and omissions as described above; and the sham transactions the Scammer perpetrated upon myself; were unfair, unconscionable, and deceptive practices perpetrated on me which would have likely tricked a reasonable person under the circumstances.\n  2\n\nPage 3 of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX\nSCAMMERS FRAUD SCHEME  ALLEGATIONS\n Please take notice that my funds were transferred through means of coercion and under false pretenses all along! Attached, please find supportive statements, screenshots, and further evidence.\nEXPOSING YOUR ORGANIZATIONS MISCONDUCT\nI hereby allege that your organization had breached the duty of care that is owed by a financial institution to its clients in circumstances where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the sole purpose of a payment instruction is to defraud the client. Under such circumstances, you are obliged to refrain from executing the payment instruction until you have been able to satisfy yourself that there is a legitimate basis for the instruction. Once the duty is engaged, the duty takes priority over the usual obligation on a financial institution to execute customer instructions promptly. The duty in question is often referred to as the Quincecare duty, because it was established in the case of Barclays Bank plc v Quincecare Ltd. (the Quincecare duty)\nThe Quincecare duty is well-established and requires financial institutions to take reasonable care and skill when executing clients instructions. It is recognized as authoritative by leading academic texts [2]. The duty arises in cases where it can be argued that an ordinary prudent staff member of a financial institution would have a reasonable basis for suspicion that a particular payment instruction would result in the misappropriation of the clients funds.\nWhen the duty does arise, it can be discharged simply by refraining from executing the instruction unless and until such time as the financial institution has been able to establish that the instruction relates to a lawful obligation. The financial institution shall seek further information or/and documentation from the client in order to help establish this.\nBased on the above, and after conducting a comprehensive review of our communication/interactions, it became glaringly obvious to me that no adequate information or/and documentation were sought by your organization, at best, and at worst no appropriate safeguards were implemented at all.\nIf a bank executed a customers order to transfer money knowing it to be dishonestly given, shutting its eyes to the obvious fact of the dishonesty or acting recklessly in failing to make such inquiries as an honest and reasonable man would make, it would be in breach of its duty of care, even if the payment was made in accordance with the terms of the mandate and the bank shall be liable to its client for damages in negligence.\nCompliance departments should ensure that staff understand the legal requirements and that where there are suspicions, these suspicions must be communicated to all relevant personnel whilst they are investigated.\n2 (XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Ellinger's Modern Banking Law XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX.)\n    3\n\nPage 4 of 7 XXXX XXXX XXXX\nFor the avoidance of doubt, reasonable grounds shall not necessarily be interpreted as proof. On the basis of various signs, you should have assumed that something fishy was going on and suspended transactions until you had made reasonable enquiries to satisfy yourself that the transactions was/were properly to be executed. In other words, I have been a victim of your negligence for facilitating the misappropriation of funds, and doing little to safeguard my financial interests. Any reasonable banker would have realized that there were many obvious, even glaring, signs that I was a fraud victim (Singularis Holdings Limited (in liquidation) v Daiwa Capital Markets Europe Limited [XXXX] UKSC 50) [ 3].\nA financial institution which wrongly pays money away when it has no authority to do so will usually be treated as if it had paid using its own funds, not those of its customer. The debits made to my account should be reversed out, and damages to compensate me for any reasonably foreseeable losses incurred as a result of your failure to state the balance of my account accurately and properly. It is also libelous/defamatory to make false statements about someone that adversely affect their credit rating.\nWhen discussing the responsibilities that a bank might incur, it is crucial not to forget the fact that a legitimate complaint by, or cause of action on the part of, a client might generate/give rise to further statutory cause of action or/and additional responsibilities or liabilities owed by a financial institution to the relevant regulatory authority. Obligations/duties owed by a bank to a regulator are distinct from those owed to the customer. On top of that, please remember you may owe liabilities to more than one regulator.\nMore often than not, such legal duties spring from the very facts that gave rise to the liabilities to your clients in the first place. Similarly to the foregoing, I may also have a cause of action against you for breach of mandate as you have negligently transferred my funds without proper authorization or enquiry.\nInstead, you should have been working hard with Artificial Intelligence [4] / Big data technologies to discover automated and effective ways not only to detect fraud but also to prevent it. Furthermore, the tremendous amount of data you possess is by no means self-evident let alone to be overlooked, hence by not utilizing it systematically and effectively to pinpoint irregular and suspicious activities you are misleading your customers, who have taken the leap of faith and placed trust and confidence in your honesty, authority, and competence.\nA plausible assumption here would be that the pattern of the above-mentioned transactions was sufficiently suspicious that it should have been flagged and blocked by your staff, even if you have never encountered similar situations.\nAccording to the FCA [5]: XXXXXXXX  could do more to identify fraudulent incoming payments and prevent accounts from being compromised by fraudsters. XXXX fraud is where a fraudster tricks a payer into making an XXXX  to an account controlled by that fraudster under false pretenses, similarly to the above-described victimization.\n3 Singularis Holdings Limited (in liquidation) v Daiwa Capital Markets Europe Limited [XXXX] UKSC 50\n4 Using AI in the fight against fraud XXXX XXXX XXXX\n5 FCA introduces new rules on handling complaints about Authorised Push Payment fraud (XXXX XXXX XXXX)\n    4\n\nPage 5 of 7 XXXX XXXX XXXX\nMoreover, I argue that you should also make a reasonable estimate on the basis of relevant historical data of my account.\n\"Given XXXX fraud is currently a XXXX million problem and growing, the potential exposure for banks is very large indeed. This is yet another reason why the banking industry must do all it can to use the data available to it to detect and stop fraud.\"\nPractically speaking, effective steps to prevent bad actors from taking advantage of future victims (or at least to minimize this possibility) are abundant:\n The use of automated and human review of irregular or suspicious transactions and traffic patterns to identify financial crimes in general and common fraudulent schemes in specific;\n Human review of complaints from the public and law enforcement in connection with rapidly-growing, recurring, and popular fraudulent practices as well as suspicious merchants, including creating special channels for such complaints;\n Cross-checking warnings, notices, cautionary announcements, and reports concerning beneficiaries, merchants, associations, or countries often suspected to be associated with cyber-fraud from governments, central banks, regulatory bodies, law enforcement agencies, and watchdogs.\n Artificial Intelligence & XXXX embrace and leverage Machine Learning technologies and Big Data Analytics to identify fraudulent, or potentially fraudulent merchants by scrutinizing publications and reports about such merchants in the digital sphere (e.g. on forums, social media, et cetera.)\n Establishing contact with the recipient institution of fraud victims: any holds in place on new related activities, or similar blockers that prevent rapid rebranding of related/similar merchants.\nIt would also be wise to consider implementing additional safeguards where the movement of large sums of monies are concerned. For instance, you could specify additional prerequisites for executing the transfer of large sums such as: (1) requiring multiple levels of approval; (2) requesting more information concerning the intended purpose of the transfers and cross-checking for similar patterns of transfer; and (3) checking on my capacity to make such transfers. While such measures entail additional compliance costs, it would be sensible for you to err on the side of caution.\n5\n\nPage 6 of 7 XXXX XXXX XXXX  CONCLUSION\n If a full refund is not administered within 10 days from the date of this letter, in addition to a refund amount, a request for reimbursement of attorneys fees, filing fees, and any further costs associated with obtaining the refund amount may be pursued.\nIn the event of non-compliance with the demand mentioned above, your organization, knowingly or unknowingly, manifestly jeopardize its business through its association with the Criminals: those who are not direct accomplices to the commission of a crime but rather are permissive of the criminal behavior after the crime has been committed can also be charged with a crime. Being permissive, even if not present when the crime was committed, by not reporting the crime to the authorities and not trying to do your part in remedying the situation, makes you an accessory to the crime. If you unknowingly assist criminal behavior and remain impartial after discovering such, you are seen as obstructing justice.\nThis letter does not realize the full extent of my claims, rights, and remedies against you or any of your affiliates, parents and subsidiary corporations, including, without limitation, your representative managing partners, officers, directors, shareholders, employees, agents, attorneys, assigns, successors, servants, insurers, and representatives, in any matter whatsoever, including the present context of this letter, as that will not detract from my rights and claims in any form or manner whatsoever, or constitute any concessions on my behalf against you and against others.\nFor more information, please reread.\nXXXX XXXX  6\n\nPage 7 of 7\nXXXX XXXX XXXX\nDEMAND FOR DISCLOSURE\nThe individuals who directed and enjoyed the fruits of these illegal and unlawful activities shall be exposed in full. This means that any and all contextual documents and/or information at your disposal shall be disclosed in a timely and equitable manner, in a reply to this letter.\nHence, I hereby demand that you disclose the following within 10 days from the date of this letter:\nReports, instructions, transmittal letters, statements, notices, and other documents, related to the relevant participants and beneficiaries, whether involved directly or indirectly, in accordance with the applicable regulations and guidelines. It also includes the correct and true names of the parties to the lawsuit, their ID NO., addresses, and telephone numbers, as well as information and documents of any potential party or of persons having knowledge of relevant facts, and a brief statement of each identified persons connection with the case, including information and documents concerning their beneficiary bank accounts, if available.\n 7\n\nTo: Bank of America\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX NC XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  Subject: XXXX XXXX XXXX  complain to Bank of America\nFAO: Bank of Americas complaints dept.\nDear Sir / Madam,\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX\n This is my subsequent letter pursuant to the original, unanswered disputed letter sent to Bank of America on the XXXX XXXX XXXX\nWith this letter, I hereby express my utmost dissatisfaction with your lack of reply to the above referenced letter and reiterate key points that were raised and left unanswered previously supporting my request for your cooperation.\nAs I mentioned I fell victim to a multilayered scam operation orchestrated by hackers (the Company) and innocently lost XXXX XXXX  of my hard-earned life-savings due to your misadministration.\nThis complex issue has caused substantial harm to me, and if not appropriately addressed, will cause substantial harm to others, we must therefore conduct an in-depth and comprehensive review of all of the contributing factors that have led to an outcome as horrendous as the one described herein.\nDue to personal circumstances, I was particularly vulnerable during the victimization period; I was also relatively financially illiterate and very inexperienced in the finance sector which made me a prime target for criminal enterprises in this field.\nFinancial institutions are well aware of the scope and nature of such crimes and the risks that these pose to their clients, who, in contrast, mostly have limited knowledge of these dangers.\nTo be clear, people who have been scammed such as myself, are not individuals who have made poor investment decisions. They are people who have been tricked, lied to, deceived and emotionally manipulated. Sophisticated, aggressive sales techniques end up trapping the uninformed and unsuspecting victim who once in the clutches of the scammer cannot get out until most or all of the funds have been lost (stolen) by the scammers. A good comparison is a XXXX who XXXX  his victim whilst at the same time XXXX XXXX  and prevents them from escaping.\nBased on my analysis, and as confirmed by various authorities concerned with such matters, there is abundant evidence that forward-thinking financial institutions ought to take reasonable steps to forestall fraud, or at least mitigate its risk by using an effective risk management\n\nsystem, demonstrating their undisputed ability to responsibly and preemptively respond to questionable transactions in the digital arena. The use of such systems, largely based on newly adopted technologies aimed at effectively navigating the evolving threat landscape, is only one of a number of possible endeavors undertaken in this connection, alongside the application of past knowledge and experience related to popular fraudulent practices.\nWhat can Bank of America do?\nPlease be noted that I will not in any way quietly tolerate the consequences of your actions (or more precisely, the lack thereof). It is perfectly obvious that you could have, and should have, utilized various risk-based examination procedures and techniques, all of which are within your purview and could have entirely prevented this disastrous outcome.\nAs previously advised, you should have known, suspected, or had reason to suspect that the transactions (or pattern of transactions):\n involve funds the ultimate purpose of which was to fuel an illegal enterprise;\n is intended to disguise funds the ultimate purpose of which was to fuel an illegal\nenterprise, in an attempt to avoid and thus violate regulations;\n is intentionally designed to defraud your customer;\n serves no legitimate or lawful purpose; and\n involve the use of your services to facilitate criminal activity.\nThere are so many other ways in which measures related to fraud prevention and mitigation could have been useful. Further factors that should have been taken into consideration include, but are not limited to, the following:\n The timing, volume, frequency, and nature of the transactions in question;\n The abnormality of such transactions against the background of your experience with me\nas a customer and other entities associated with the transactions (if any);\n The suspicious nature of such transactions based on my overall risk profile including\nvulnerability and identification and research of high-risk services/products;\n Systemic filtering mechanisms, whether manual or automatic, for the identification of\nunusual activities; and\n Periodic evaluation of the usefulness, appropriateness and effectiveness of anti-fraud\nprograms, and other associated policies and procedures.\nRelevant industry practices at the time of the victimisation:\nYour Organization is obliged to take some action if it is sufficiently aware of a real possibility that a fraud may be being perpetuated. If you don't question its customers instructions or raise the possibility of a scam with the customer in these circumstances, it may be liable if the red flags indicate the customer is:\n particularly vulnerable, or\n if the possibility of fraud was serious or real, not just suspected.\nThere are some recommendations to organisations for protecting","date_sent_to_company":"2023-04-21T20:26:34.000Z","issue":"Other transaction problem","sub_product":"Virtual currency","zip_code":"33908","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"6736230","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2023-03-22T23:52:24.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>XXXX</em> <em>fraud</em> is where a fraudster tricks a payer into making an <em>XXXX</em>  to an account controlled by that fraudster under false pretenses, similarly to the above-described victimization.\n3 Singularis Holdings Limited (in liquidation) v Daiwa Capital Markets Europe Limited [<em>XXXX</em>] UKSC 50\n4 Using AI in the fight against <em>fraud</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em>\n5 FCA introduces new rules on handling complaints <em>about</em> Authorised Push Payment <em>fraud</em> (<em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em>)\n    4\n\nPage 5 of 7 <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em>\nMoreover, I argue that you should"]},"sort":[8.651159,"6736230"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16783219","_score":7.910958,"_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":["You will see that it was typically used to pay for antiques that were bought at auctions and the charges were <em>usually</em> paid off monthly. \nThe <em>fact</em> that the fraudulently acquired airline tickets were used for travel to the <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> and that other persons besides me were also fraudulently charged for tickets to the <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> via <em>XXXX</em> strongly suggests that there is more than just credit card <em>fraud</em> taking place."],"sub_issue":["Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute <em>about</em> a purchase on your statement"]},"sort":[7.910958,"16783219"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"4343030","_score":6.2324715,"_source":{"product":"Credit card or prepaid card","complaint_what_happened":"We have several credit cards and most of them are somehow tied to Synchrony Bank. We didnt ask for this company, but apparently they have the monopoly on loans with no interest if paid upon the agreed timeframe. \n\nCurrently, we are paying off or have recently paid off surgery for our dog, a computer, a our Lowe 's card and a mattress. ALL attached to Synchrony Bank. We ALWAYS pay these off early so as to avoid the high interest rates. We are a single income family and try to be conservative. \n\nRecently I went into the CARE credit account to close it because we paid it off before the 6 month deadline. But I was forbidden to access it. I called Synchrony Bank and they were very reserved and would not talk to me as the customer, but instead told me they had sent out paperwork for me to review. That is all he would say. \n\nLast Friday, the XXXX of XXXX, we went into Lowe 's to pay off the balance of our credit card ( to avoid interest ) and also tried to make a new purchase. Many know that there is an advantage when you use the card and you save an additional 5 %. However, our Lowe 's card was declined. We asked the Lowe 's rep to find out why. She called Synchrony Bank and they would not say. I asked to speak the the rep. I was told my account was under investigation for fraud and my card would not be allowed to process. \n\nOther companies involved are XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX. \n\nThe rep at Synchrony Bank would not not consider me as the customer or the card holder, rather she treated me as a criminal. They didn't treat me as if they were trying to protect me as a customer. Nobody sent out an email as a courtesy or a phone call, but all of my accounts are frozen and nobody would tell me anything. \n\nAt this time, if we have an emergency, say with our dog, and we try to open a Care Credit account to make monthly payments, we will be refused. ANYTHING with Synchrony Bank is currently frozen. Yet I still have open accounts. They don't question \" fraud '' when I make payments. \n\nAlso, every account was opened by me and my wife, I provided legal photo identification when the account was opened. So subsequently, when I checked my credit report on Saturday, I noticed my rating had dropped substantially. This means, since my wife is attached to the card, her credit will also be effected. We are not wealthy by any means, so it is an honor to have built up our credit so we may purchase things needed. \n\nI then began to look at other complaints with the Consumer Affairs ' and the XXXX  and found the same company was doing the same thing to others and also causing problems with their credit. And nobody is helping those of us effected. \n\nAfter reading multiple reviews, it is apparent that the Bank is having issues with those who pay the loan off early. We are being penalized. Ours is not an isolated incident, but many others are having their credit diluted and damaged. \n\nWe didnt ask for the Synchrony Bank but this is what individual stores offered us at the time. My credit is being destroyed by a Bank that is apparently upset about not being able to get interest out of me. If you think that is absurd, then you read the complaints on the consumer affairs dot com and tell me if all of us are just plain XXXX. I don't know what you can do, but I hope you can help. Let 's see if you are really an advocate for us as your name implies or are you just bureaucrats drawing a check. \n\nProtect us! Stop these people from damaging the reputations we built up. \n\n\n\nHere are several of the recent complaints in case you don't read them on consumer affairs website. \n\n*** '' I have been having trouble the last couple of years. I pay my bill when it arrives in my emails to be paid. I am then charged a late fee because they tell me I am paying too early. No matter how many phone calls I have made, I am told the same thing, that as long as I pay it without waiting for 2 to 4 days, then it XXXX up their statement period, and I will be charged late fees. This in no way seems fair or legal. '' *** '' Hi, as I read more of these reviews I feel empathy for everyone. I was a holder of a Synchrony Credit Card until they decided to close it on the basis of high risk failure to pay. I would like to know what basis they determined this on when I am up to date on my payments and have paid over the minimum payment each time. No one on the phone was of any help and treated me like I was irreverent. I have been doing everything right and they still closed my account during COVID -19 at that. So if they continue to waste my time on the phone running in circles, not answering any of my questions, I am organizing to SUE for wrongful determination during a pandemic. If anyone else if interested as well don't hesitate to contact me. '' *** '' I have no late payments, all accounts are current. Synchrony chooses to reduce credit limits. Close \" XXXX '' balance accounts. This has decreased my credit score XXXX  points. They approve credit cards at one amount and then reduce them. Showing your credit available being maxed out. When you pay them off, XXXX balance. They close the card. They are destroying my credit. Do not take any accounts associated with this company. I have most of mine paid off and my credit is still in bad standing, thanks to this company. '' *** '' There were 595 consumer reviews of Synchrony Bank in XXXX, Ct on the XXXX  website. Synchrony Bank has a rating of 1.06 STARS out of 5 STARS. There were 1950 complaints in the last year alone and 5053 complaints in the last three years. Somehow, the XXXX  rates Synchrony Bank with an A+ Rating probably because the XXXX collects a yearly fee from Synchrony Bank and presumably because Synchrony Bank will provide you with a canned response no matter what. There is a huge difference between legal and ethical norms. Synchrony Bank can do just about anything they want to legally but that does not mean it is ethical. \n\nIf you take the time to read complaints, you will find that Synchrony Bank does not care about your business. They do not care that they are hurting your credit score even when you are a good paying customer. Take the time to read the responses that Synchrony Bank has to individuals that have paid their accounts as agreed and had their credit rating destroyed by this company. There are probably hundreds, if not thousands of individuals, that have had their credit destroyed by this business without cause and the responses from Synchrony Bank are all canned. \n\nThe consistent responses are always : 1 ) When you got credit from the bank, you agreed to allow Synchrony Bank to reduce your credit limit or close your account at any time for any reason even though they will not contest in the majority of complaints that a customer has paid them on time for even a matter of years.\n\n2 ) If you say, correctly that I might add, that Synchrony has hurt your credit score. The response is that your credit score can change on a daily basis. Even though Synchrony banks employees without any doubt that they hurt your credit, dont expect an apology or an admittance that they have done so.\n\n3 ) Synchrony Bank claims to provide notice to individuals that they have reduced your credit limit or closed your account, even though it is statistically impossible for them to actually be doing so as required by law.\n\n*** '' I bought a bed at Mattress Firm using them to finance XXXX  purchase. I paid on time every month. As I paid it down, they kept lowering my credit limit, which dropped my credit score EVERY SINGLE MONTH. I made the final payment yesterday and will never use nor recommend them again. '' *** '' Don't get this card. You think you have it for emergencies. But they will cancel it and send you a letter after the fact. They canceled my wife 's while she still had a balance. Affecting both of our credit scores. My card I used it almost to max and paid all payment on time or early. And was saying it for use. The closed the account stating I was a risk. But all my payments were on time and 100 % paid off. Now my score dropped over 35 points cause I was a loyal person. Just to get stabbed in the back by a computer ran organization. XXXX XXXX  I have ever heard of. '' *** '' So I first got the Synchrony Amazon Store Card four years ago. All was well and I never had any issues with this account, until now. I usually pay my account in full each month to avoid interest and keep my statement balance at {$0.00}. I have never paid late, not once. Last month XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ) I had spent about {$120.00} on my Amazon Store Card. I paid in full two days before the due date of XX/XX/XXXX. Statement printed {$0.00} balance on XX/XX/XXXX. Synchrony reported {$0.00} balance on XX/XX/XXXX. \nThen I spent about {$400.00} on the card, with three charges on XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX, and do you know how they rewarded me for always paying early and in full? They REPORTED MY CURRENT MONTH 'S SPENDING to the Credit Bureaus! Ten days after the bill closed, and one week after they reported my {$0.00} balance to the bureaus, they re-reported my account with the brand new charges that were merely hours old! Those charges have not been billed yet, and won't be until XX/XX/XXXX, so the XXXX Period to pay in full wont even begin until XX/XX/XXXX and those charges will not be due until XX/XX/XXXX! \n\n*** '' Do the bureaus really need to know that I bought a few things at Amazon before those charges are even due? Is this their way to punish me because I get 5 % cash back on this card and never pay any interest? My credit score was harmed by their unnecessary, mid-cycle report and when I tried to call them about it, they put me on hold twice, 15 minutes each time, until I gave up and hung up. '' *** '' My response to all of this was to immediately log in and pay my account in full. Payments show as \" processed '' in the payment history, but the billing activity still does not reflect the payments, nor have they been withdrawn from my bank. So now it appears they are \" false processing '' my payments for reasons unknown to me. I think they have crossed a major line and are now engaging in illegal activity. \n\nNow that they have monkeyed with my account that in this way, I am reading lots of other reviews about what they have done to other people in recent weeks and months. They are lowering people 's credit lines, closing accounts, and taking other actions that directly hurt customer 's credit ratings, and they are doing this to the good customers who manage their accounts responsibly. They truly are punishing the responsible cardholders for reasons unknown. It makes me wonder what is going on with them internally. I do know they are paying out a large class-action settlement, but it's in the millions and Synchrony 's 4th quarter XXXX earnings were in the billions so I can't imagine that is the issue. \n\nSeems like they are just wanting to get rid of customers who don't pay interest and enjoy the rewards offered on their various store cards. Really a shame that they treat good responsible customers this way. We are literally being penalized for being a better credit risk! If I didn't already have these accounts, I think I would avoid getting involved with this bank because they may be ok for a while, but that could change overnight as it has for me, without warning and for no apparent reason other than they just want to. If they don't process my payments tomorrow, I'll be complaining to the CFPB. '' *** '' I have been a customer for 10 yrs with multiple credit cards linked to Synchrony Bank, 6 to be exact, as well as credit cards from other credit companies. I have always paid my bills on time throughout the years with no real issues. Unfortunately I was hit pretty hard/badly with the pandemic of XXXX causing a financial strain for the rest of the year. Out of all my creditors synchrony bank was the least willing to work with me. \n\nIn an attempt to save my credit cards I paid Synchrony bank off first before my other creditors, since my other creditors were more willing to work with me in such trying times. Synchrony bank literally waited for me to pay off my accounts and then CLOSED ALL OF THEM within a months time frame, stating my credit score dropped too low during the pandemic and that I could reapply again once my score came back up! None of my other creditors closed my accounts. I will never again apply for anything backed by Synchrony bank for as long as I walk this earth! ''","date_sent_to_company":"2021-05-01T23:15:03.000Z","issue":"Trouble using your card","sub_product":"Store credit card","zip_code":"240XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"4343030","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL","date_received":"2021-05-01T22:27:19.000Z","state":"VA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Can't use card to make purchases"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em>  I have ever heard of. '' *** '' So I first got the Synchrony Amazon Store Card four years ago. All was well and I never had any issues with this account, until now. I <em>usually</em> pay my account in full each month to avoid interest and keep my statement balance at {$0.00}. I have never paid late, not once. Last month <em>XXXX</em> XX/XX/<em>XXXX</em> ) I had spent <em>about</em> {$120.00} on my Amazon Store Card. I paid in full two days before the due date of XX/XX/<em>XXXX</em>."]},"sort":[6.2324715,"4343030"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8576967","_score":5.1029143,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)\n\nComplaint ID #2XXXX\n\nOriginally submitted on XXXX XXXX XXXX, as a Federal Reserve banking services credit card product issue, the problem stated as a purchase shown on my account statement, filed against XXXX XXXX, has been formally withdrawn, given better understanding of the Federal regulatory divisions.  \n\nSo for clarity, this complaint is intended against XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and its credit card subsidiaries for violations of the legacy and recently issued customer compliance outlook dated XXXX.\n\nThe Federal Reserve consumer protection and community development to help ensure a fair and transparent financial services marketplace that benefits all Americans.\n\nFairness and transparency  along with consistency  are guiding principles that inform my perspective on bank supervision and regulation. \n\nTogether, these three elements help to ensure that the supervisory expectations are clear and, in doing so, encourage open communication between banks and supervisors. \n\nAs the Consumer Compliance Outlook (CCO) furthers these goals by providing financial institutions, compliance professionals, and the public with information about compliance with the laws and regulations that protect consumers and support investments in communities.\n\nId share that as the control documents fall into an ever-growing directory of regulations, laws, and advisories, its increasingly difficult for consumers to point to a single control document to gain the banks support staff attention i.e., REG E, once stop the process and guided prescribed steps required, without such assistance its often difficult to expedite consumer concerns.\n\nAmerican Consumers and lawmakers have repeatedly called for common-sense oversight surrounding personal financial data that gives consumers more control.\n\nTowards that end, there needs to be a restriction on what and how financial data can be bought and sold with, by, and through Big Tech firms as they morph into payment giants, demanding restrictive actions and oversight of peer organizations.\n\nIf tech names can show connective on financial transaction, its intimidation of consumers, intended or not, is seemingly insurmountable. So, if you go to the bank and are then returned to the culprit, where do you go for assistance?\n\nAlthough my complaint requires filing with both CFPB and FTC, its difficult to explain the issue without referencing both and correctly the U.S. financial institutions credit card issuers in these complaints the language may vary, however the results convey and enforce uniformly the same.\n\nU.S. Banks will not accept formal filings of complaint against XXXX XXXXXXXX., and thus, no consumer dispute calendar is ever engaged. \n\nAnd recently, just confirming those facts I found can generate a new series of actions by XXXX  about consumer identity and/or financially related inquiries, although a consumer has a known relationship with XXXX.\n\nIt sounds as if the banks refer consumer into XXXX, but the banks support and service personnel advise,   its difficult to contact XXXX by phone (but, easier than the standard long convoluted online client assistance offered by XXXX as a standard service method) so, expect long wait times, and please avoid Mondays under all circumstances. \n\nI wont call names but, one service representative, told the bank didnt accept disputes because all issues involving XXXX had to have XXXX  approval to resolve and only after insisting she offered an alternative.\n\nThe Banks representative asked me to hold. She stated,   however when I return dont refer to me, just explain the circumstances to XXXX, Ill listen silently and when the Apple rep. agrees and disconnects remain on the line and Ill return to insure a credit is issued. \n\nTraditionally, however, the banks representatives simply state questions related to XXXX credits and charges are exclusively handled by XXXX.\n\nThere is one exception, specific to XXXX XXXX deservant of special note, which was a back office engagement.\n\nIn the XXXX XXXX XXXX, on three separate and distinct dates, the Banks automation kicked-off the following advice:\n\nPlease let us know if you or an authorized user recognize the purchase below. The sooner we hear from you, the sooner we can help protect your account from unauthorized purchases.\n\nOn all three (3) the merchant, XXXX for XXXX, each had received an automated DECLINE, the electronic notice further stated.\n\nIf you respond yes, declined transactions will stay declinedAfter responding, try your card again.\n\nI received the same notice on XXXX XXXX and on XXXX XXXX XXXX, at which time I called the Bank to inquiry why Id started receiving these notices. I, like many, dont always use the same card from purchase to purchase or month to month.\n\nBut, I didnt realize these notices were connected to the Banks systematic authorization application and would generate auto-declines on any purchase in the future anytime the card was used and without explanation.\n\nIt was a holiday weekend, as I recall, so it would have been  Wednesday, XXXX XXXX XXXX, when I spoke to a Bank customer service representative, who asked for patience as she transferred the call. \n\nThe authorization rep., wasnt as I recall being in the least concerned for my understanding, which was usual but, it was clear the authorization rep., needed and was going to clear the decline against XXXX at all cost.\n\nWhat made it especially memorable was the fact, he advised the card would stop every time used until the decline was lifted and when I asked why he advised it was the fact the card had a decline for a charge against XXXX? \n\nThe comment, the authorization issue, was so bothersome. I stated it would not be acceptable, and Id need a name and what policy of XXXX XXXX this decision was tied to?\n\nThat was the first time he began searching for work around-s but it was the first time he advised hed insure the card continued to operate.\n\nI can only assume he re-instated or removed it all together because wed agreed Id reach out to advise but, when I researched the one item, it lead to another and quickly became overwhelming.\n\nI cant imagine what a senior or young college-age-consumer or anyone working outside the home could do to manage through the process and maintain employment, or a reasonable family-life or a life, period.\n\nWith no assistance from the Bank I attempted to complete a forensic audit and recap of the credit cards transactions held with XXXX XXXX alone, for XXXX:\n\nLet me walk you through just one of many transactions with one credit card processor.\n\nXXXX, XXXX bills my XXXX account twice once for Cloud storage and the second a music subscription.\n\nXXXX RECONCILIATION DOC: of XXXX billing shows both a Music Subscription and Cloud storage charge dated XXXX and XXXX.\n\nREMEMBER XXXX XXXX automated system reports a serial of transaction requiring authorization and in discussion with their authorization support member, basically its agree or every future authorization with be, declined and, the advice offered is I have number to offer for assistance but, staffing is limited (notifications dated XXXX XXXX and XXXX).\n\nMost importantly, no documentation is kicked off or documented and/or disclosures generated.\n\nXXXX SUPPORT is online only, so the consumer is required to figure out the description successfully to get to the end-result. \n\nIf youre unsuccessful, you can ask a chat-bot which offers the same details in an endless loop with no live support available so, can anyone see how this meets the ADA requirements or timelessness standards?\n\nXXXX, XXXX also bills XXXX XXXX account XXXX, for Music Services and a separate generated billing and statement (attached)\n\nXXXX, 1XXXX XXXX  bills XXXX XXXX account XXXX# titled BILL CA.\n\nXXXX, XXXX bills XXXX XXXX account XXXX# traditionally Music storage charge.\n\nXXXX, XXXX bills XXXX XXXX account XXXX# traditionally Music storage charge.\n\nXXXX XXXX bill XXXX XXXX account XXXX# traditionally Music storage charge.\n\nXXXX XXXX bills XXXX XXXX account XXXX# traditionally Music storage charge.\n\nXXXX XXXX bills XXXX XXXX account XXXX# traditionally Music storage charge.\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX bills XXXX XXXX account XXXX# traditionally TV service.\n\nXXXX XXXX bills XXXX XXXX account XXXX# traditionally Music storage charge.\n\nXXXX XXXX accounts once, re-numbered, not continue to report or display so, you need bank assistance to determine long-term damage and access. \n\nAnd whether inadvertent or intentional, the scope and manner of XXXX actions and provide warning of how easily monopolist organizations set-up shop undetected before the American people. \n\nId also add, until this XXXX, Ive never requested access to Music or TV and have never used either, although the XXXX APPS are available but, Ive never downloaded the TV APP. \n\nOne critical point who buys a service which is never used, or the required app to use the service, is never downloaded in a closed loop environment is impossible to use without XXXX authorization.\n\nStorage has been previously sold to XXXX and has now returned to XXXX but, many times at the point of opening, the photo files it holds  immediately degrade until unusable. \n\nEach of these entities (XXXX and XXXX) having platform interest, storage i.e., one picture generations additional opportunities, to edit one generating two files of storage, each picture edit standalone into multiple files driving up storage expenses consumers may or may not be aware, extra document review generates a new file, etc. , thus device, and related entities.\n\nLet alone temporary files, which are maintained without many times consumer awareness so, files only useful to the big 3 or 4 generate endless storage opportunities and up-charges and billings, etc.\n\nXXXX recently began demanding privacy issues of responsibilities and assuming ownership over the phone producer. \n\nSo is the seller the owner, or the manufacturer if XXXX or XXXX, etc., the producer or does every owner thereafter become the privacy owner, selling, and enabled to start new relationships, etc., so where do consumers reclaim privacy data exposed?\n\nAnd since XXXX isnt a traditional entrant, why do they have an interest in your data other than to sell financial materials to others but, clearly these actions set the ground-work of determinations of unwinding products and services unconsidered.\n\nBohemian corporations like XXXX, seem to express and engage in cooperative relationships with peer organizations to pierce traditional oversight measures which weve observed in the U.K. i.e., XXXX accused of destroying sellers by withholding money in so-called, reserve accounts structures. XXXX payment policy states the reasons for putting money on hold include a sudden increase in sales, a shop having only made its first sale recently, the shop committing a policy violation or other risk factors.\n\nSome sellers told the XXXX that two reserve periods were imposed on them consecutively, said XXXX XXXX, XXXX Business reporter, headline XXXX accused of destroying sellers by withholding money, published XXXX XXXX XXXX.\n\nBut, theres a much larger issue which never consolidated by oversight there are direct sub-sets all tied to financial transactions and services which combined directly disadvantage not only small businesses but, consumers who are easily overwhelmed not only by the direct correlation but, all the associated and unseen correlations, continues XXXX.\n\nXXXX is an online marketplace that allows independent sellers to set up their own shop. It specialises in bespoke items, handicrafts or things not usually available in High Street shops.\n\nXXXX XXXX. is a US-based company which trades its shares on the XXXX XXXX XXXX in New York, where it listed its stock in XXXX. XXXX shares currently trading at XXXX each - a far cry from an all-time high of XXXX during the Covid pandemic in XXXX.\n\nIts biggest shareholders are major financial institutions such as XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX.\n\nThe company is led by chief executive XXXX XXXX who has worked at an eclectic mix of businesses such as online auction site XXXX, the internet chat firm XXXX and XXXX XXXXXXXX. He has been chief executive since XXXX.\n\nIt was originally founded in XXXX by XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX who started the business from XXXX XXXX Brooklyn apartment. None of them remain with the firm.\n\nThe CFPB must advance quickly plans to begin the tactical widening issues  of rule-making that would subject XXXX XXXX XXXX and others to supervision as it examines how companies monetize data that and continues an unfair assault on consumers.\n\nAnd even with items highlighted the list unseen considerations continues consumers and small business are assaults daily including, independent Internet companies affect anyone as consumers are tracked online through XXXX and other browsers, given the ability without oversight to freely, come and go-to browser comes through search engine the playground of the Big 3 or 4 i.e., XXXX, etc. with each browser uniquely given comprehensive privacy protection and controls but, in protection of whos interest?\n\nTens of millions of consumer are or arent  protected not at their behest everyday online activities, searching browsers, email, on the unlimited platforms of XXXX XXXX XXXX, and XXXX\n\nBut, whats clear, American CORPs have increasingly jumped the moon and time is ticking, and not on the side of U.S. consumers. \n\nHow XXXX has accessed and kept up-to-date posting against numerous MasterCard/VISA account numbers, sometime able to access closed accounts which have been closed for fraud activities.\n\nReporting any fraud generally receives no follow-up most consumers would state but, an account closure, new card and account generated. \n\nAny unauthorized transactions until recently, when I found multiple transactions from a Tech Giant, which were reversed over months and no other action taken.\n\nIt also points out the varieties methods for MasterCard/VISA accounts are recorded and records-kept by banks, some disappear such as XXXX XXXX systemically goes through and removes accounts so, how does a client further identify all activity and does the FED have any accounting standard?\n\nAnd from a safety and liability stand-point how many accounts are reconciled by a certified public auditing and accounting corporation perspective?\n\nAnd if XXXX is off the reservation, how does such measurement impact bank stability overall today and into the future?\n\nXXXX will pay XXXX to resolve harassment charges after top executives sent live spiders and cockroaches to two bloggers who wrote critical articles about the company.\n\nSenior staff at the US tech firm launched a petrifying harassment campaign against XXXX  and XXXX XXXX, a couple from Massachusetts who run the e-commerce Bytes blog.\n\nToday its impossible to say what wont be done in the steeple decline of civility, during COVID-19 and the housing crisis who didnt financial services CEO, swearing at American consumers and stockholders?\n\nExecutives were upset with some of the coverage on the blog and said the writers had to be burned down.\n\nBesides a box of live spiders and cockroaches, the couple was sent a funeral wreath, a bloody pig mask, and a book about surviving the loss of a spouse.\n\nIna Steiner received bizarre and sometimes threatening messages on Twitter purportedly from groups such as an irritable bowel syndrome patient support group and the Communist Party of the United States.\n\nThe pairs home address was also posted online alongside invitations for strangers to attend sexual encounters, yard sales and parties, while the employees made plans to break into their garage and place a GPS tracker in their car.\n\nThe XXXX said the harassment had a damaging and permanent impact, on them emotionally, psychologically, physically, reputationally, and financially.\n\nOver three years after the employees were prosecuted, the US Justice Department has now charged XXXX with stalking, witness tampering and obstruction of justice, said XXXX XXXX of the Telegraph under the headline, XXXX ordered to pay couple XXXX after senior executives sent bloody pig mask and live cockroaches, published XXXX XXXX XXXX\n\nXXXX XXXX  acting as Massachusetts US Attorney, said: XXXX engaged in absolutely horrific, criminal conduct.The companys employees and contractors involved in this campaign put the victims through pure hell, in a petrifying campaign aimed at silencing their reporting and protecting the XXXX brand.\n\nThe need for stronger, sustained and long-term oversight is clear and each case filed takes the marketplace further and further down the rabbits hole but, neither commitment nor oversight shows true interest in resolving such acts, if it were so, the record would show success but, it doesnt because neither institution public nor private is focused on the American peoples interest to the financial services great demise.      \n\nThus when I advise it appears XXXX has access to credit card numbers and account unrestricted and even further credit reporting agencies, all form a web-connection with concern, add to the team MasterCard, Visa who are exclusive unrestricted parties and American consumer are basically unprotected victims awaiting further victimization in a pool of sharks.\n\nIt may not seem the same but, it is when XXXX bills you repeatedly for the same services and holds hostage any photos or documents refusing to save or hold documents and refining the storage held and doing this while having been paid for the service, shows no controls in place i.e., Your iCloud storage is fullnotifications, actions, dated 1XXXX XXXX, etc. XXXX  shows no controls or correlation, continuing to forward notifications for many devices from one record which appears as its organized to overwhelm clients, taking lazy revenue dollars against the consumer and doubling or tripling revenue, i.e., Your iCloud storage is fullBecause youve exceeded your storage plan, dated XXXX, etc.  \n\nIn addition, XXXX has established direct connection links so, even passing and reviewing monthly transactions generations Thank you for viewing purchase details associated, and sets new parameters which can convey intended or not an implied threat and why does XXXX need a live-connection if this is the same service provided by US banks?\n\nNotifications dated XXXX XXXX\n\nIf nothing else is true, each additional touch conveys exceptional status between U.S. banks, which are regulated with XXXX right, wrong, or indifferent?\n\nIt creates a status intended or not, which is advantageous to XXXX alone and further, oversight and regulatory understanding and complexity safety. \n\nThe most important rule making for the CFPB in XXXX will be the Tech Giants\n\nIn the absence of Congressional actions only the FED-regulators and the U.S. Courts are ability to exercise some controls and corporations and financial services are already heading back to the U.S. Courts to destabilize the marketplace, this only an example of the liability and regulatory environmental landscape, collapsing onto American consumers.\n\nWorse than the conscious destabilizing action are unconscious impacts when corporations extend pressures as the parents seen in the last Congressional hearing with XXXX XXXX, it can become immobilizing to the human psyche. XXXX  walks out feeling put upon but, hes wrong just as financial services, internet service providers and the Federal government are the civilization fails whenever every day for We the People is the story of David and Goliath, Congress plays a continued game as it allows this issues unaddressed to go to the U.S. Courts or become Executive Orders.\n\nIncreasingly, its clear, its not a matter of whos watching the hens house, theyre busy watching from XXXX, CO no longer concerned American consumer will find, discover or take rath but, its foolish to believe your actions are invisible everyones replaceable and theres always one born every minute, even smarter oh and its a presidential election year, as the fryers hearing up on bad behavior.\n\nFinally, as XXXX XXXX, the FED and regulatory bring a new merger for consideration, almost like the XXXX XXXX), which the FED brought forward and ultimately become XXXX XXXX, which continues to bleed consumer confidence and legal actions its clear Justice needs a much larger and better partner than the FED who seems to have lost its oversight expertise.     \n\nIt knows until the law addresses the People intent, its basically waiting for appeal, a second bite at the same issues upon appeal and its wrong, We the People depend on righteousness to prevail, known.\n\nThank you in advance for your guidance and assistance.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-03-19T22:56:46.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"06066","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8576967","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","date_received":"2024-03-19T21:49:41.000Z","state":"CT","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Card was charged for something you did not purchase with the card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Banks will not accept formal filings of complaint against <em>XXXX</em> XXXXXXXX., and thus, no consumer dispute calendar is ever engaged. \n\nAnd recently, just confirming those <em>facts</em> I found can generate a new series of actions by <em>XXXX</em>  <em>about</em> consumer identity and/or financially related inquiries, although a consumer has a known relationship with <em>XXXX</em>."]},"sort":[5.1029143,"8576967"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13693898","_score":4.4869103,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Complaint for Violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act Introduction : Nature of the Action : Plaintiff XXXX XXXX XXXX ( hereinafter Plaintiff ) brings this Complaint against Defendant TransUnion Consumer Solutions ( TransUnion ) for repeated and willful violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq., and for failure to comply with industry Metro 2 reporting standards. Plaintiff alleges that TransUnion has persistently reported inaccurate and fraudulent information on his credit report and failed to conduct reasonable reinvestigations of disputed information, in violation of federal law. Despite multiple disputes and a prior identity theft report, TransUnion has continued to report erroneous account information, causing ongoing harm to Plaintiffs credit reputation and financial well-being.\n\nSummary of Violations : TransUnions wrongful conduct includes : ( a ) reporting charged-off accounts with ongoing past-due balances, which is inconsistent with FCRA accuracy requirements and Metro 2 guidelines\n; ( b ) failing to reinvestigate and correct these inaccuracies within the time frame required by law ; ( c ) refusing to provide Plaintiff with the documentation or description of its investigation as required ; and ( d ) effectively performing only cursory, automated investigations that merely parrot furnishers responses, contrary to the FCRAs mandate of a genuine, reasonable investigationcaselaw.findlaw.comcaselaw.findlaw.com. These practices have been condemned by courts and regulators alike, including in a recent enforcement action where the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) described TransUnions dispute handling as sham investigations that flout federal lawconsumerfinance.gov.\n\nPurpose of Complaint : Through this legal-style complaint ( modeled as a federal civil action ), Plaintiff seeks to compel TransUnion to immediately delete all disputed, inaccurate accounts from his credit file and to ensure full compliance with the FCRA and Metro 2 standards. Plaintiff further puts TransUnion on notice that failure to comply within 14 days will result in legal action in federal court, where Plaintiff will seek all available relief, including statutory and punitive damages for TransUnions willful noncompliance. This Complaint is deliberately structured in a formal legal manner so as to bypass automated e-OSCAR dispute processing and demand direct attention from TransUnions compliance and legal departments.\n\nJurisdiction and Venue : Jurisdiction : This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1681p and 28 U.S.C. 1331, because Plaintiffs claims arise under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act. TransUnions violations of 15 U.S.C. 1681i and 1681e ( b ) give rise to a private right of action for which Plaintiff seeks relief. Supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims ( if asserted ) would be proper under 28 U.S.C. 1367. \nXXXX  : XXXX is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. 1391 ( b ) because Plaintiff resides in this District and the events giving rise to the claims occurred here. TransUnion regularly conducts business in this District and maintains substantial contacts here. TransUnion, as one of the nations largest consumer reporting agencies, is subject to personal jurisdiction in this District and throughout the United States. Given that the harm to Plaintiffs credit report was felt in this District, venue is appropriate for the adjudication of this dispute. \n\nIntradistrict Assignment : ( If applicable under local rules. ) The events described herein occurred primarily in the county of Plaintiffs residence ( XXXX XXXX, Maryland ). Accordingly, assignment to the XXXX XXXX of this XXXX would be proper. \n\nParties Plaintiff : XXXX XXXX XXXX is a natural person and consumer residing in XXXX XXXX, XXXX. Plaintiff is a consumer as defined by 15 U.S.C. 1681a ( c ), in that he is an individual about whom TransUnion prepares and furnishes consumer credit reports. Plaintiff has at all relevant times been the victim of false and inaccurate credit reporting by TransUnion, which has adversely affected his credit score, credit opportunities, and peace of mind. \n\nDefendant : TransUnion Consumer Solutions/TransUnion LLC ( TransUnion ) is a publicly traded company in XXXX under the ticker symbol XXXX on the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX TransUnion principal place of business is XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX  XXXX. TransUnion is a consumer reporting agency ( CRA ) as defined by 15 U.S.C. 1681a ( f ) : it regularly engages in the practice of assembling or evaluating consumer credit information for the purpose of furnishing consumer reports to third parties for monetary fees. TransUnion does business nationwide, including substantial business in the XXXX of XXXX. At all relevant times, TransUnion acted through its agents, employees, or representatives, who were in the scope of their employment and under TransUnions supervision and control. \n\nNon-Party Furnishers : Various creditor institutions and debt collectors furnished the information at issue to TransUnion. These furnishers include, XXXXXXXX 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  ( collectively, the Furnishers ). While not named as defendants in this complaint, the Furnishers are mentioned to the extent that TransUnion relied on their information and responses. Under 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ), these Furnishers have duties to investigate and correct disputed information when notified by a CRA. TransUnions conduct in this case is intertwined with the Furnishers failures to correct the false data ; TransUnions actions effectively facilitated and continued those statutory violations by the Furnishers. \n\nFactual Allegations XXXX XXXX XXXX Account : TransUnion was reporting an installment loan account with XXXX XXXX XXXX that had been charged off after alleged non-payment. Here again, TransUnion listed the XXXX account with a status of XXXX XXXX while simultaneously indicating a significant past-due balance remaining. The presence of a past-due balance on an account flagged as a charge-off is contrary to the Metro 2 reporting standards set by the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Metro 2 guidelines require that once an account is charged off, the account should reflect a zero current balance and no ongoing past due amount ( since the debt is no longer an open receivable on a current schedule ). TransUnions reporting of the XXXX account violated this standard by showing the account as if payments were still actively delinquent post-charge-off. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : TransUnion was also reporting a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX credit card ( XXXX XXXX ) account with inaccurate status. This account was listed as a charge-off with a past-due balance of several XXXX dollars. If this account was legitimately charged off by XXXX XXXX, it should not have a continuing past due amount in the manner a currently delinquent account would. The reporting created a misleading impression that XXXX had an open, delinquent balance with XXXX XXXX, when in reality the account was closed and charged off ( or, potentially, was also impacted by identity theft or prior disputePlaintiff had previously contested its accuracy ). \n\nOther Accounts and Inaccuracies : In addition to the above, other accounts on Plaintiffs TransUnion report showed similar discrepancies ( charge-off notations with continuing balances, inconsistent dates or amounts, etc. ). Each of these inaccuracies represents a failure by TransUnion to assure maximum possible accuracy in Plaintiffs credit file as required by 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ). For example, at least XXXX collection account continued to be reported even after the underlying debt was resolved, and several accounts did not reflect notices of dispute that Plaintiff had lodged, which TransUnion is required to note on the report per 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( c ). For brevity, this Complaint focuses on the primary accounts listed above, but Plaintiff alleges that any and all disputed accounts on his TransUnion report contain errors that TransUnion negligently and willfully failed to correct. \n\nImpact of Inaccurate Reporting : The inaccurate information described in Paragraph XXXX was highly damaging to Plaintiff. TransUnions report portrayed Plaintiff as significantly more delinquent and high-risk than he actually is. The reporting of multiple active past-due balances on charged-off accounts made Plaintiffs credit profile appear as if he had multiple severe, unresolved delinquencies at the same time. This has adversely affected Plaintiffs credit score and has led to credit denials or offers on far worse terms than Plaintiff would otherwise qualify for. Moreover, the continued presence of fraudulent accounts ( the XXXX XXXX cards opened by identity thieves ) on the report means Plaintiff is effectively being penalized for crimes committed by others, a harm the FCRA specifically intended to prevent through 1681c-2. Plaintiff has suffered credit damage, loss of credit opportunities, and considerable emotional distress ( including stress, anxiety, and frustration ) as a direct result of TransUnions reporting failures. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX Plaintiffs Dispute to TransUnion : Promptly after reviewing the XX/XX/XXXX credit report, on or about XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX submitted a detailed dispute to TransUnion, challenging the inaccurate accounts. Plaintiff utilized the CFPBs consumer complaint portal to lodge this dispute ( CFPB XXXX XXXX. XXXX, submitted XX/XX/XXXX, and forwarded to TransUnion shortly thereafter ). In his dispute, Plaintiff clearly identified each erroneous account and explained why the reporting was incorrect or inconsistent with the FCRA and Metro 2 standards. Specifically, Plaintiffs dispute highlighted that TransUnion was : Reporting charge-off accounts with an active past-due balance, which is a contradiction and an FCRA violation ( failing to maintain accuracy ) as well as a Metro 2 violation. Plaintiff cited 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) ( requirement for consumer reporting agencies to use reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of information ) and noted that this standard was breached by the blatant errors on his report. \n\nFailing to note previous disputes/investigations. Plaintiff referenced that he had disputed the same accounts before ( in XXXX ), and TransUnions reinvestigation obligations under 15 U.S.C. 1681i had not been met, as the results remained incorrect. He emphasized that TransUnion must conduct a reasonable reinvestigation of each disputed item, contact the Furnishers with all relevant information, and delete or correct any information that can not be verified as accurate. \n\nPossibly ignoring supporting documentation. Plaintiff attached and/or referenced supporting documents in the CFPB complaint ( such as correspondence, prior dispute results, the identity theft police report, billing statements showing discrepancies, etc. ), and insisted that TransUnion review this evidence rather than relying on automated means alone. \n\nIn this XX/XX/XXXX dispute, Plaintiff expressly requested that TransUnion : ( a ) delete the fraudulent XXXX XXXX accounts ; ( b ) remove or correct the past-due balance reporting on any charged-off accounts ( including XXXX and XXXX Card ) and several other accounts so that they are accurate or deleted if unverifiable ; and ( c ) provide Plaintiff with a copy of the updated report and an explanation of the investigation results. Plaintiff also indicated that if the accounts were verified as accurate, he wanted to be provided with the method of verification and documentation that TransUnion relied upon, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) ( 7 ).\n\nTransUnions Statutory Duty to Reinvestigate : Upon receiving Plaintiffs dispute, TransUnion was legally required to conduct a meaningful reinvestigation of the disputed items. Under 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ), a consumer reporting agency must reinvestigate disputed information on a consumers report within 30 days of receiving notice of the dispute ( with a possible 15-day extension if the consumer provides additional relevant information during the 30-day period ). By law, TransUnion was required to : notify the Furnishers of the dispute, provide them all relevant information about the dispute, review and consider all information provided by Plaintiff, and then delete or modify any information that is found to be inaccurate or unverifiable. If the reinvestigation resulted in no change, TransUnion was obligated to send Plaintiff a notice of the results and, upon request, a description of the procedure used to determine the accuracy and completeness of the information ( the method of verification ) per 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) and ( 7 ). These FCRA provisions impose a grave responsibility on TransUnion to do more than simply take a creditors word if the information could be inaccuratecaselaw.findlaw.com. \n\nTransUnions Failure to Timely Respond ( No Response in 30 Days ) : TransUnion did not provide any response or results of investigation within the 30-day period following Plaintiffs XX/XX/XXXX dispute. By law, the reinvestigation should have been completed by approximately XX/XX/XXXX ( 30 days after the dispute was communicated to TransUnion ), or by XX/XX/XXXX if a XXXX extension applied due to additional information provided by XXXX. Those dates passed with no communication from TransUnion. Plaintiff received no update in XX/XX/XXXX regarding the status or outcome of his dispute. This silence itself was a violation of FCRA 1681i. TransUnions failure to reinvestigate and respond within the statutory timeframe is a clear violation of 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 1 ), which mandates prompt handling of consumer disputes. Indeed, TransUnions conduct forced Plaintiff to take further action, as described below. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX Delayed TransUnion Response : On XX/XX/XXXX roughly 51 days after Plaintiffs dispute TransUnion provided a belated response through the CFPB portal, which TransUnion characterized as the results of its investigation. In this response ( which Plaintiff received on that date ), TransUnion claimed to have verified the disputed accounts as accurate and made no meaningful changes to the report. TransUnion did not delete the fraudulent XXXX XXXX accounts ; it did not remove the past-due balance fields on the charge-off accounts ; and it did not otherwise correct the misinformation. Essentially, XXXX XX/XX/XXXX response indicated that the data was verified as accurate by the source. The response was cursory and failed to specifically address the evidence Plaintiff had provided. Furthermore, TransUnion did not provide any of the underlying documents or details of the verification process. It did not, for example, supply Plaintiff with copies of any verification forms or correspondence from XXXX XXXX, XXXX, or XXXX XXXX. Nor did it explain how a charge-off with a past-due balance could be deemed accurate under industry standards. \n\nNo Method of Verification Provided : Plaintiff, upon receiving TransUnions XX/XX/XXXX response, noticed that TransUnion did not include a method of verification letter or description. On XX/XX/XXXX ( the same day the response was received ), Plaintiff requested via follow-up communication that TransUnion provide a detailed description of the procedures used to verify the disputed information, as is his right under 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 7 ). TransUnion failed to comply with this request. TransUnion did not send any further explanation of how it conducted its reinvestigation. It provided no information about who at the Furnishers was contacted, what information was given to the Furnishers, or what the Furnishers replied with. This lack of transparency violated TransUnions obligation to provide the method of verification upon request, an important consumer right designed to allow individuals to assess whether the credit bureaus investigation was reasonable. By withholding this information, TransUnion hindered Plaintiffs ability to further challenge or correct the errors, effectively stonewalling his dispute. \n\nTransUnions XXXX on Automated Procedures : From the substance of TransUnions XX/XX/XXXX investigation results, it is evident that TransUnion relied solely on automated processes ( e.g., e-OSCAR ) and the Furnishers electronic responses in handling Plaintiffs dispute. TransUnions response to the CFPB complaint was generic and gave no indication of any human review of Plaintiffs documentation. Upon information and belief, TransUnion simply sent an Automated Consumer Dispute Verification ( ACDV ) form through the e-OSCAR system to XXXX XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX XXXX, and other accounts and then blindly accepted their responses that the accounts were verified as reported. TransUnion did not exercise any independent judgment or scrutiny, even though the face of the data contained glaring inconsistencies ( such as a charge-off with an ongoing balance ). In essence, TransUnions investigation was no investigation at all it was an automated forwarding of information and regurgitation of whatever the Furnishers responded with.\n\nFailure to Conduct a Reasonable Reinvestigation : TransUnions handling of the dispute fell far short of a reasonable reinvestigation as required by FCRA 1681i ( a ). A reasonable investigation would have entailed, at minimum : recognizing the obvious red flags in the data, seeking clarifications from Furnishers about the charge-off status vs. balance discrepancy, and independently verifying the identity theft claims ( for example, by reviewing the police report, comparing signatures, or examining account application records for the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. TransUnion did none of this. It merely confirmed the information with the source and took no further steps, which courts have held to be inadequate. In XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX held that simply sending a form to the creditor and doing nothing more is insufficient a credit bureau must bear some responsibility for evaluating the accuracy of information obtained from subscribers in a reinvestigationcaselaw.findlaw.com. Similarly, the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Trans Union Corp. held that a reinvestigation that merely parrots the creditors position can not fulfill the obligations contemplated by the statute.caselaw.findlaw.com TransUnions conduct here mirrors the discredited practices in those cases. It shifted the burden back to Plaintiff and the Furnishers, rather than actually resolving the dispute, thus violating the core purpose of 1681i. \n\nCFPB Recognition of XXXX XXXX Practices : XXXX pattern of handling disputes in this automated, perfunctory manner is not only a violation of the FCRA as interpreted by the courts, but it has also drawn regulatory scrutiny. On XX/XX/XXXX, the CFPB filed a public enforcement action against XXXX, alleging that XXXX  does not take sufficient steps to ... investigate ... consumer disputes, resulting in the inclusion of incorrect information on credit reports.consumerfinance.gov The CFPBs Director XXXX XXXX stated that TransUnion was conducting sham investigations rather than properly reviewing the disputes as required by federal law.consumerfinance.gov The experiences of the Plaintiff in this case exemplify the very misconduct that the CFPB identified. XXXX failure to genuinely investigate Plaintiffs dispute especially in the context of identity theft and blatant reporting errors aligns with the CFPBs allegations that XXXX systems prioritize speed and automation over accuracy and fairness. This regulatory action underscores that TransUnions violations in Plaintiffs case are not isolated incidents but part of a broader pattern of willful non-compliance. \n\nContinued Reporting of Disputed Accounts : As of the filing of this Complaint, TransUnion continues to report the disputed accounts on Plaintiffs credit file without the corrections requested. The XXXX XXXX accounts remain, still marked as charge-offs with balances ; the XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX and other accounts, still show past-due amounts despite charge-off status. Each monthly cycle that passes, these accounts potentially update in TransUnions system as continuing derogatory marks, further prolonging the damage to Plaintiffs creditworthiness. Plaintiff has expended considerable time and effort trying to resolve these issues ( including writing complaints, gathering evidence, and researching his rights ), all due to TransUnions failure to meet its statutory obligations. \nTransUnions Violations Were Willful or, Alternatively, Negligent : TransUnions conduct described above was willful. TransUnion is fully aware of its duties under the FCRA it has been subject to prior lawsuits and regulatory actions for similar conduct, and it literally co-owns the e-OSCAR system used for disputes. TransUnion knew or had reason to know that the information it was reporting about Plaintiff was inaccurate ( the inconsistencies were facially obvious ), yet it willfully chose to ignore the red flags. TransUnion also willfully decided to use an automated dispute verification system without employing any manual review for Plaintiffs dispute, despite the complexity ( involving identity theft and multiple accounts ). In the alternative, if TransUnion claims it did not act intentionally, then at minimum its actions were negligent. Any reasonable company in TransUnions position, acting with due care, would have conducted a proper investigation and corrected the errors. TransUnions failure to do so, whether by conscious design or gross indifference, directly caused harm to Plaintiff.\n\nSummary of Harm to Plaintiff : As a direct result of TransUnions actions and omissions, Plaintiff has suffered injury including damage to his credit reputation, denial of credit opportunities, higher interest rates on credit offers, and emotional distress ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ) from the ongoing inability to correct his credit report. Plaintiff has been forced to engage in a protracted struggle to have basic errors corrected, undermining his confidence in the fairness of the credit reporting system. These harms are precisely what the FCRA was designed to prevent. TransUnions repeated failure to comply with the FCRAs mandates is particularly egregious given the multiple opportunities it had to correct course ( in XXXX and again in XXXX ). Plaintiff now brings this Complaint seeking relief to finally rectify the situation and hold TransUnion accountable under the law. \n\nCase Law and Regulatory Support XXXX XXXX TransUnion XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) : In XXXX, the XXXX XXXX emphasized that a credit bureaus reinvestigation of disputed information must be more than a token effort. The court held that the FCRA imposes grave responsibilities on agencies like TransUnion to ensure accuracy, and that a so-called reinvestigation that merely rubber-stamps the furnishers response is inadequatecaselaw.findlaw.com. In that case, Trans Union had verified an obviously fraudulent account by simply asking the creditor, which the court found could violate 1681i. The XXXX XXXX flatly stated that the burden of investigation is on the consumer reporting agency, not the consumer : the statute places the burden of reinvestigation squarely on the [ CRA ] a reinvestigation that merely shifts the burden back to the consumer and the credit grantor can not fulfill the obligations contemplated by the statute.caselaw.findlaw.comcaselaw.findlaw.com TransUnions handling of Plaintiffs disputes in the present case mirrors the disapproved conduct in XXXX. Like TransUnion in this case, TransUnion simply parroted information from its subscribers ( creditors ) without carrying out its own duty to verify accuracy. Under XXXX, such conduct violates 1681is requirement of a reasonable reinvestigation. \n\nXXXX v. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ) : In XXXX, the XXXX XXXX confronted a scenario involving fraudulent accounts ( opened by the plaintiffs son ) where the CRA relied solely on form requests to creditors during reinvestigation. The court held this was insufficient. It famously wrote : In a reinvestigation of the accuracy of credit reports, a credit bureau must bear some responsibility for evaluating the accuracy of information obtained from subscribers.caselaw.findlaw.com The XXXX XXXX reasoned that if a consumer has alerted the agency that the source of information ( the creditor ) maXXXX be unreliable ( for example, due to fraud or error ), the agency is obliged to go beyond the initial source and conduct a more searching inquirylaw.justia.com. It rejected the argument that a consumer should have to resolve the fraud directly with the creditor, affirming that the onus is on the CRA to resolve it caselaw.findlaw.com. In the case at bar, Plaintiff explicitly alerted TransUnion that the accounts were products of fraud or error ( and even provided an identity theft report and other evidence ). Under XXXX, TransUnion was duty-bound to do more than just ask the creditor via e-OSCAR. TransUnions failure to take any additional steps ( such as actually examining the police report or contacting Plaintiff for more info ) runs afoul of the standard set in XXXX. The lessons of XXXX reinforce that TransUnions simplistic approach to Plaintiffs dispute was legally deficient. \n\nXXXX v. XXXX  XXXX. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) : In XXXX, the plaintiffs disputed an erroneous credit item multiple times, and XXXX  repeatedly verified it by relying on the creditors word, despite evidence the information was wrong. The court denied summary judgment for XXXX, holding that 1681i ( a ) can require a CRA to go beyond the original source of information when the circumstances indicate the source may be XXXX. The decision noted that the majority of courts have found that a CRA must verify the accuracy of its initial source in certain situations, rather than blindly trusting the XXXX. In XXXX, the plaintiffs had even provided court documents to prove the account was resolved, yet XXXX  still took the creditors outdated report at face valuelaw.justia.com. The court cited XXXX and XXXX approvingly in concluding that whether a CRAs investigation was reasonable is usually a question for the XXXX, especially when the consumer has provided information calling the creditors data into XXXX. XXXX applies squarely here : XXXX gave TransUnion ample reason to doubt the furnishers ( pointing out obvious errors and fraud ), but TransUnion persisted in relying exclusively on those furnishers. Just as in XXXX, a fact-finder could ( and likely would ) determine that TransUnion willfully failed to conduct a proper reinvestigation. The case law thus supports Plaintiffs position that TransUnions conduct was unlawful under the FCRA. \n\nRecent CFPB Enforcement CFPB XXXX XXXX  ( XXXX. XXXX. XXXX ) : The Consumer Financial Protection Bureaus lawsuit against Experian, filed in XX/XX/XXXX, serves as powerful confirmation by the nations chief consumer credit regulator that XXXX  dispute-handling practices violate the FCRA.\n\nMetro 2 Compliance Standards : While not codified in the FCRA, the Metro 2 format guidelines ( issued by the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) are the industry standard for reporting credit information. Adherence to Metro 2 is indicative of reasonable procedures for accuracy under 1681e ( b ). One key Metro 2 guideline is that an account that is charged off ( Category Profit and Loss Write-Off ) should have a current balance of {$0.00} and no past-due amount, since the debt is no longer an open obligation in the creditors portfolio. .Metro 2 Compliance Standards. Adherence to Metro 2 is indicative of reasonable procedures for accuracy under 1681e ( b ). One key Metro 2 guideline is that an account that is charged off ( Category Profit and Loss Write-Off ) should have a current balance of {$0.00} and no past-due amount, since the debt is no longer an open obligation in the creditors portfolio. By maintaining past-due balances on charged-off accounts, TransUnion deviated from Metro 2 standards, further highlighting the unreasonableness of its procedures. Additionally, Metro 2 provides specialized codes for indicating disputed information and identity theft accounts ; TransUnion either did not use these codes or ignored them in Plaintiffs case. The result was tradelines that were blatantly non-compliant with industry norms, reinforcing that TransUnions conduct was not just a technical error but a failure of the very controls meant to ensure data integrity.\n\nWillfulness and Pattern of Non-Compliance : The above legal authorities show that TransUnion has been on notice for decades that it must do more than superficial checks when consumers dispute information, especially in cases of fraud or obvious error. XXXX ( XXXX ) and XXXX ( XXXX ) have long been part of FCRA jurisprudence, and the FCRA statute itself is clear in its language. The fact that in XXXX TransUnion is still engaging in conduct that those cases found unlawful strongly suggests willfulness. TransUnions pattern of ignoring both court guidance and regulatory warnings ( like those from the CFPB and prior state Attorneys General settlements ) constitutes reckless disregard of consumers rights, which meets the standard for willfulness under 15 U.S.C. 1681n ( a ). Consequently, not only is TransUnion liable to Plaintiff for actual damages ( and/or statutory damages ), but an award of punitive damages is warranted to deter TransUnion from continuing its unlawful practices and to punish it for this pattern of misconduct.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-05-24T15:47:29.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"20904","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13693898","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-05-24T15:20:03.000Z","state":"MD","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Investigation took more than 30 days"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["The court cited <em>XXXX</em> and <em>XXXX</em> approvingly in concluding that whether a CRAs investigation was reasonable is <em>usually</em> a question for the <em>XXXX</em>, especially when the consumer has provided information calling the creditors data into <em>XXXX</em>. <em>XXXX</em> applies squarely here : <em>XXXX</em> gave TransUnion ample reason to doubt the furnishers ( pointing out obvious errors and <em>fraud</em> ), but TransUnion persisted in relying exclusively on those furnishers."]},"sort":[4.4869103,"13693898"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6583808","_score":3.7312145,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Metro 2 / e-OSCAR Compliance Deficiencies and FCRA willful violations - XXXX  Bank credit card XXXX  inaccurately reported in Metro 2 as old card XXXX  \n- [ ] Despite my clear disputes for willful FCRA violations, XXXX  and every CRA are NOT Metro 2 Compliant which should have forced and requested e-OSCAR to verify whether every item and every required field is filled in accurately, mandatorily and logically 100% perfect to meet compliance standards, as set forth in the 355 page Credit Reporting Resource Guide to meet ALL of the requirements of the FCRA, FCBA, and ECOA to insure maximum accurate and complete information on my credit history.  My paper credit reports of Experian, XXXX XXXX XXXX of XXXX showed that I never missed a payment to any creditor.  However, supplemental and additional data omitted illegally from my paper credit report but included in Metro 2 files in XXXX XXXX showed that I had been 60 days past due with a 100% perfect which is not only illogical but impossible as I have always had a perfect payment record on every account.  Numerous credit scoring and credit data analysis firms such as XXXX XXXX  access Metro 2 credit data to report scores and account changes and payment records.  Metro 2 coding errors and data concealed from paper credit reports prevents errors from being known and corrected by consumers in willful violation of the FCRA. Metro 2 is available to lenders who use information concealed from consumers which most likely contains inaccurate data such as late payments.  My credit score was 200+ points below what it should have been due to the concealed and inaccurate 60 day late payment inside Metro 2 and concealed from my paper reports.  I have complained to every CRA and the improper verification responses have been to ask me what data is incorrect instead of researching my Metro 2 data to tell me what data is in Metro 2 that is concealed from my paper credit reports.  Consumers are scammed by Metro 2 inaccurate data concealed from paper reports resulting in a systematic inappropriate reporting system in substantial and known violation of laws including the FCRA.  In fact, the whole Metro 2 system is useless since it contains data visible to others but concealed from consumers.  How can a consumer check data for accuracy on paper credit reports when a complete set of conflicting and additional supplemental data is available inside Metro 2 yet undiscoverable, concealed and Unknown to innocent unsuspecting consumers???  Metro 2 even scams sophisticated consumers who frequently check paper credit reports fir accuracy. Therefore, my XXXX  Closed account plus all my closed accounts must be permanently deleted from every CRA unless and until an independent unbiased capable entity certifies that all Metro 2 data is 100% accurately coded and properly incorporated in my paper data credit reports so that Metro 2 data is 100% identical to my paper reports. I maintain that Metro 2 data will always contain data not available and not visible on paper credit reports in willful violation of the FCRA.  Therefore, my XXXX  and every CRA must promptly permanently delete my XXXX  and other closed accounts and, in the interim until deletion, report accounts as disputed by consumer, closed by consumer, consumer affected by a natural or declared disaster, payment deferred, affected by COVID-19,  etc for which Metro 2 does not even have the fields and capability to accurately insure such required items are reported completely, consistently, logically and accurately monthly without the possibility of change through updates causing improper removal of codes and code replacements.  XXXX  does not understand this and it is incompetent and incapable of complying with the FCRA and Metro 2 mandatory coding as will be shown herein.  This matter is ripe for investigation by the CFPB and Florida AG who has an injunction against XXXX  for deceptive, unfair and unlawful trade practices.  I need from XXXX  every Metro 2 data submission since XXXX  with a manual reconciliation to explain each and every paper entry in my credit report for every item and field.  I need the Metro 2 transcribed to what is actually in its system as I know the codes (such as XA, XB, XC, XD, XE, XFetc) and I know what the codes mean but I do not know exactly what code has been reported since coding may be illogically, subjective, improper, temporary and changing with erroneous and inconsistent coding. My credit reports change multiple time daily with codes removed, replaced, removed, replaced, removed, etc erroneously and inaccurately in willful violations of the FCRA.  Once my account is closed it must remain as closed but a furnisher subsequently reporting a closed account as disputed usually will remove the closed account code in violation of the FCRA and replace it with a dispute code instead of keeping both the closed and disputed designation.  Garbage in means garbage out.  Metro 2 gets complicated in my case when I have a XXXX  acct with a wrong account number which is closed, disputed, affected by a natural or declared disaster, payment deferred, paid from insurance, failed to be reported monthly, etc where the Metro 2 codes cannot properly report the mandatory obligated FCRA requirements.  Moreover, XXXX  has shown that it is incapable of understanding Metro 2 and is unqualified and unwilling to report accurate credit data.  The integrity and reportability of my XXXX  and other closed accounts is called into question as mandatory data fields are missing, contested and cannot be verified and certified as perfectly compliant, mandating deletion entirely.  Not only are numerous required fields in segments missing entirely, but many fields are inaccurate, and more importantly, Furnishers do not understand how to accurately code the complex mandatory compliance codes.  XXXX  does not even know what a closed account is under Metro 2 so it inaccurately reported my account that I closed in XXXX XXXX as open and refuses to mark my account as closed as required by the FCRA and Metro 2.  XXXX  claims that it closed my account to purchases when I closed my account but it will never mark my account on my credit report as Closed unless and until I pay my balance in full.  All XXXX  has to do is read Metro 2 to see that an account is closed by a consumer when requested even if there is a balance.  Metro 2 and the FCRA clearly requires marking my account as closed promptly after my admitted closure in XXXX.  If XXXX  does not understand Metro 2 and the FCRA and its obligations and prohibitions how can XXXX  be permitted to continue to report under Metro 2??? It is almost 2 months and XXXX  has failed to mark my account as closed, disputed, affected by natural or declared disaster on a monthly basis?  My closed XXXX account is still willfully inaccurate as it is still reported as OPEN on XXXX on my 3 credit reports,  As of XXXX, XXXX  last reported my account to XXXX  on XXXX in willful violation of the Metro 2 requirement to report monthly.    CRAs know Metro 2 requires monthly reporting.  CRAs have the responsibility to delete my account before XXXX  responds.  XXXX  does not even know how  to report account numbers accurately in Metro 2 as my account number continues to be reported as XXXX  even though my account number was changed to XXXX  about 3 years ago.  Metro 2 is too complicated for XXXX  to use and it is obvious that it does not understand how to change account numbers or it just shortcuts its obligations and refuses to accurately report my account accurately.  Simply stated, XXXX  is not Metro 2 compliant as it does not understand  the system and the 355 page guidelines  requiring proper coding for fields for Closed, Disputed, inaccurate data and account numbers and accounts affected by COVID and natural and declared disasters, all of which are missing from my XXXX  file for months. XXXX  has failed to monthly report my account since it last reported to XXXX  on XXXX as of XXXX.  Clearly, XXXX  is not Metro 2 compliant mandating deletion.  XXXX  does not have the ability or desire to accurately report. Metro 2 field 17A must include DA immediately to prevent irreparable harm and to avoid further willful FCRA violations with punitive damages exceeding XXXX based on 11th circuit USCA decisions for jury awards of XXXX for a single failure to report the account as disputed.  XXXX  is a recalcitrant lender who does not know the law and refuses to follow its known obligations.  XXXX  should attempt to mitigate damages instead of alienating me and increasing its obligation to pay me significant damages. I claim past statutory and other damages to offset the frivolous and uncollectable disputed balance which I claim is XXXX, mandating dismissal and deletion of my XXXX  account permanently.  I demand XXXX  and every CRA disclose every Metro 2 coded field since XXXX to ascertain what is actually exactly reported and at the same time asking them to manually reconcile paper conflicts.   I do not understand why XXXX  refuses to immediately mark my account as Closed, disputed, deferred, affected by COVID and a natural disaster, etc.  What is its sinister goal???? A Metro 2 Compliance request triggers e-OSCAR to electronically evaluate whether every piece of data was mandatorily perfect and complete Metro 2 Formatted Reporting Standards was properly reported within the compliance standards set forth by the FCRA.  CDIA definitions that go along with Metro 2 Language are either unknown, not read, not considered, or just purposely evaded by XXXX  or purposely violated due to incompetence or willful disregard.  Obviously, a systematic problem exists at XXXX  affecting its similarly situated cardholders.  Closed accounts at XXXX  are never reported as closed in willful violation of the FCRA.  I demand that XXXX  immediately stop reporting my account as OPEN.   My account is closed since XXXX and such date closed is required to be permanently entered into Metro 2.  XXXX  is not Metro 2 Compliant mandating permanent deletion of my account from every CRA.  Compliance Condition Codes are used to reflect accounts Closed at Consumers Request AND Accounts Disputed By Consumer to comply with mandatory reporting under the FCRA, FCBA and FDCPA.  XXXX  does not even know the Definition of a closed account is and what a dispute is and it has not put any of the multiple mandatory codes into Metro 2 in complete and willful violation of the FCRA and other laws, both State and Federal.  XXXX  knows that my account is Closed and disputed yet it knowingly refuses to enter any Compliance Condition Codes in willful violation of the FCRA.  Simply stated, no code means XXXX  is not Metro 2 Compliant mandating permanent deletion of my account from every CRA.  My XXXX  and Experian reports are not reported monthly as required under Metro 2. (See Attached Experian reports of XXXX and XXXX showing XXXX as last reported date). Rather than promptly reporting my account as CLOSED on XXXX as required with a simple update, XXXX  completely stopped reporting since XXXX in violation of Metro 2. Apparently, XXXX  does not know how to enter mid cycle updates or it is just incapable of monthly reporting and mandatory prompt and immediate mid-cycle updates required by Metro 2 to comply with the FCRA.  My attached XXXX  report of XXXX shows inaccurately shows my XXXX  account number as XXXX  instead of XXXX. an inaccurate variable/adjustable rate, an inaccurate date of last payment, missing data for XXXX XXXX etc,, inaccurate date of last activity, missing deferral date, missing date closed, missing Closed account status, missing dispute code and other FCRA compliance codes.  Despite my disputes, XXXX  has failed to promptly and immediately update inaccurate disputed information to CRAs apparently willfully or because it does not understand how to update with Metro 2 / e-OSCAR protocols.  Reporting inaccuracies must be corrected promptly in order to comply with the FCRA.  See section 623(a)(2)(B).  The e-OSCAR Consumer Dispute System is designed and required to have built-in edits and safeguards to prevent illogical responses and impossible entries such as deletion of a closed account status resulting in a closed account inaccurately reported as open.  Similarly, once a consumer is marked as deceased, Metro 2 must prevent the person to be reported as alive by not permitting illogical coding entries. Replacing a required field with a blank field or zero to force Metro 2 to accept data for updates and submission must not be tolerated.  The CFPB website, like most websites, prevents submission until all required fields are marked and entered.  Metro 2 has no such controls so it allows submission of blank and inconsistent data without any effective checks and controls or allows furnished to evade requirements.  The numerous blank data fields demonstrate that XXXX  cannot and has not complied with Metro 2 standards and any one of the multiple blank required fields is grounds, standing alone, to delete my entire account for Metro 2 Compliance deficiencies and FCRA violations.  Every Metro 2 field has a purpose and no field must be blank under any scenario.  The entire Metro 2 Compliance safeguards are nonexistent.  Information within a dispute response must be complete and logical to insure maximum possible accuracy pursuant to well settled law. There are multiple coding duplicate safeguards to insure Metro 2 compliance.  For example not only does Metro 2 require a permanent Compliance Code for a closed account to comply with the FCRA but Metro 2 requires the entry of the actual DATE CLOSED so the closed status must be reported in 2 fields to prevent coding evasion.  Purposely entering blank required fields to force Metro 2 to update a submission constitutes a willful and deliberate violation of the FCRA and Metro 2 intended protocols. The incomplete, delayed and inaccurate  XXXX  reporting, with missing mandatory and required Metro 2 fields, should have required e-OSCAR to delete my account due to multiple Metro 2 Compliance deficiencies.  XXXX  should have been notified by CRAs of its reporting deficiencies or otherwise blocked from reporting entirely.  XXXX  has been negligent by failing to update its internal controls and record keeping to avoid and prevent re-reporting incorrect and illogical information.  XXXX Frequently Asked Questions and Answer, Question 64, discusses How should a replacement credit card be reported. XXXX  either does not have competent staff to understand Metro 2 or it just refuses to comply to save money.  In my case, my old acct # XXXX  was required to be updated with the new account number of XXXX (changed about 3 years ago) so XXXX  is NOT 100% Metro 2 Compliant mandating deletion.  Exact account number reporting is mandatory for many reasons including an internal control to prevent duplicate reporting of accounts especially when accounts are sold or transferred to others.  I have made multiple disputes but not only has XXXX  noticed yet failed to fix the obvious account number inaccurate account number but not one CRA has noticed the error nor forced Metro 2 updating of the correct account number as required to be Metro 2 compliant.  My Experian paper report conceals the last 4 digits of my XXXX  account number so I could not discover the inaccurate account numbers and inaccurate reporting in willful violation of the FCRA. On the other hand, XXXX  just reports just the last 4 numbers of XXXX  account on my paper so that the complete account number is discoverable to scammers by merely looking at 2 separate credit reports.  The FCRA and Metro 2 require the complete account number into Metro 2 and paper credit reports to insure accuracy and prevent duplication.   The ineffective procedure of partially blocking 4 or more account numbers on paper reports is counterproductive, achieves no valuable benefit or protection and deprives consumers of the right to determine accuracy especially if accounts are transferred. Since there is XXXX liability for credit fraud to consumers, complete account numbers must be reported on every CRA pursuant to the FCRA especially on Closed accounts, such as XXXX, which should be blocked.  The partially blocking of account numbers has protections for furnishers and no benefits for consumers, so every account on my credit report is inaccurate and not Metro 2 Compliant mandating deletion of every account including my XXXX  account. XXXX  answer to Question 58 required XXXX  to Report my account as deferred along with Special Comment AW (Affected by Natural or Declared Disaster) and other coding mandatory field entries negligently or intentional omitted in violation of the FCRA.  As XXXX  knows I live in XXXX  and I told it many times that I took a direct hit from Hurricane Ian in XXXX XXXX and I have been seriously affected by the FEMA declared natural disaster, not only has XXXX  willfully violated its specific obligation under the FCRA to report on my credit report  Affected By Natural or Declared Disaster, Compliance code AW, but it claims I am late despite the prohibition of late reporting due to Hurricane Ian.  Again, XXXX  is apparently deliberately negligent or untrained in meeting its mandatory obligations under Metro 2 contained in the 355 page Guide or it has maliciously and purposely violated the FCRA to hopefully induce me to pay disputed account charges thereby entitling me to XXXX+ in statutory and punitive damages so my claims exceed the smaller XXXX  disputed claim.  XXXX  and every CRA must enter account status code DA in field 17A to avoid and mitigate damages.  How about the mandatory Date of First Delinquency that furnishers and CRAs never report accurately. It is about time XXXX  sends its employees Back to School to learn about its obligations to insure maximum possible accuracy coding required under Metro 2/e-OSCAR/FCRA/FCBA/etc.  Garbage IN means Garbage OUT. Worst yet is leaving mandatory required fields BLANK in complete disregard for the requirements of Metro 2 and the FCRA.  Exhibit 8 of the XXXX  regarding Compliance Condition Codes, which is reported in Field 20 of the Base Segment, is used to reflect accounts Closed at Consumers Request, and, inter Alia, consumer disputes under the FCBA, FDCPA and FCRA.  Numerous Condition Codes exist (XA, XB, XC, XD, XE, XF, XI, XH, XJ etc) exist mandating reporting Accounts Closed at Consumers Request with the DEFINITION:  Reported when a consumer requested an account be CLOSED with an Important Note: Report the DATE CLOSED as the date the account was CLOSED TO FURTHER PURCHASES which XXXX  acknowledges was in XXXX XXXX.  Field Definitions in Metro 2 for #26 state: Date Closed  the date the account was closed to further purchases there may be a BALANCE DUE.  I need to repeat again and again what the FCRA and Metro 2 require in the 355 page guide.  Definition: Reported when a consumer requested an account be closed with an Important Note: Report the Date Closed as the Date the account was closed to further purchaseswhich XXXX  letter acknowledges was in XXXX. Again, Field Definitions for #26 Date Closedthe date the account was closed to further purchasesthere may be a balance due.  There can be absolutely no doubt that XXXX  has no idea of what a Closed account is and what the FCRA, case law, and the 355 page Metro 2 guide defines.  Or worse it has lied, lied, lied to federal investigators and its own superiors mandating disciplinary action against employees conspiring to violate the FCRA.  XXXX  top management needs to take disciplinary action against its staff for unconscionable conduct. XXXX  frivolous and illegal position that it will never report my account as closed unless and until I pay the entire balance in full is absolutely ridiculous and in willful and malicious disregard for the FCRA mandating maximum possible Statutory and Punitive damages plus Attorney Fees exceeding XXXX.  Does XXXX  want a US District Court jury to punish it if it is wrong?  Does XXXX  want to spend XXXX in legal fees and related expenses only to lose?  Does XXXX  want a US District Court to ask a US Magistrate Judge to issue a Report of Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law to be reviewed by the US District Court Judge for judgment and Rule 11 sanctions?  Does XXXX  want the CFPB and the Florida AG to prosecute it?  Does XXXX  employees want to risk losing their jobs for knowingly, deliberately, maliciously, negligently and purposely violating the FCRA in bad faith?  Is there criminal conduct under multiple federal statutes for lying to federal authorities?  XXXX  top management and  below have no idea what the FCRA and Metro 2 straight forward Definitions are for a closed account or worst it knows my account is closed yet it continues to illegally report my account as Open for a sinister purpose.  XXXX  knows that my account was closed yet it refuses to report my account as Closed in willful violation of the FCRA, Metro 2 etc even though it acknowledges my phone call demand to close my account in XXXX resulting in not only a closure, by definition, but XXXX  blocking my account from further purchases thereby meeting the Metro 2 definition of a Closed account.  XXXX  falsely claims that my account will NEVER be reported as closed until my entire balance is paid in full.  I closed my account in XXXX  but XXXX  refuses to report my account as closed and just willfully violated the FCRA and Metro 2 by reporting my account as OPEN.  XXXX  had systematically, maliciously, deliberately and willfully violated the FCRA and Metro 2 resulting in inaccurate and incomplete reporting of data including blank data and codes in data fields in Metro 2 that XXXX  and CRAs refuse to adequately investigate.  Once I called XXXX  by phone and demanded it close my account and XXXX  at that time processed my closure request telling me my account was now closed telling me the account was blocked from further purchasers so I needed to advise merchants not to use my closed account further, XXXX  was required to PROMPTLY in a matter of a few days or minutes (not months) report my Account As Closed By Consumer forever keeping it Closed with every CRA never to be changed or deleted. Reporting an account as closed should be an instantaneous and automatic credit reporting process as it happens so frequently.  XXXX  blocked my account from further purchasers and read me the disclosure statement on its recorded line that my account was closed which I demand a certified copy of such transcript herein as additional proof of XXXX  wrongdoing.  This is certainly a learning lesson for XXXX  so its staff may understand and comply with its obligations under the FCRA and Metro 2.  Treating Consumers as stupid with disrespect is a terrible way to respond to bona fide complaints and disputes., especially when CFPB complaints can be viewed online for the public to read.  Does XXXX  really want to risk multi jurisdictional civil and criminal litigation over the Definition of a Closed Account?  The Definition of what a Closed account under the FCRA and Metro 2 is absolutely clear and its repeated definitions cannot be challenged under any scenario. Your Law firms will risk damaging their reputation and licenses by claiming my Closed XXXX  account is still Open when faced with a Rule 11 motion and action for sanctions for frivolous conduct.  What is wrong with XXXX? Is your XXXX  parent telling you to lie to federal authorities?  Are your executives stupid?  Do you think the CFPB is stupid? Do you think a jury and US District Court Judges are stupid?  Well, I am obviously NOT stupid and it is obvious that I am furious about the entire credit reporting system and its lack of controls.  The CFPB knows and has acknowledged unacceptable systematic FCRA violations. I just cant believe XXXX  insists on reporting my Closed account as Open.  Keep being STUPID and XXXX  will pay bigger and bigger  serious consequences.  Customers must be treated with respect not treated as Stupid by untrained inexperienced or stupid employees who do not act in the banks best interest.  When I filed my complaint with the CFPB, you should have taken the complaint seriously and tried everything to satisfy me by even giving me more than I asked for instead of being stupid.  XXXX  should have reduced my interest to 0% and just offer to pay me a XXXX statutory damage amount while not admitting or denying wrongdoing.  Moreover, XXXX  should have offered to permanently delete my account from every CRA as that would cost XXXX.  But XXXX  is not only stubborn but a stupid recalcitrant lender who would never offer a XXXX concession but would prefer to spend millions rather than make needed token concessions. Businesses pay huge sums to answer customer service phone calls and concessions are the cheapest and most effective way to satisfy and retain customers.  But obviously, XXXX  has alienated me (and others similarly situated) by treating me as stupid even after filing a CFPB complaint.  What would XXXX XXXX  Parent in XXXX  say when matters get out of Control and no one wants to acquire you?  I could continue for 20 more pages quoting the FCRA, Metro 2 Guidelines, statutory intent, criminal federal statutes, CFPB policies, Case law etc but XXXX  is required to know all that and have its Staff trained and knowledgeable.  This Complaint will certainly assist XXXX  staff in understanding its obligations under the FCRA and Metro 2.   I am entitled to relief as a consultant would charge huge amounts for what I have told you about your deficiencies.  Once my account was closed, XXXX  was prohibited to report my account with a variable interest rate so again XXXX  coding with a variable rate is inaccurate which everyone missed after closure.  XXXX  needs to send its staff and upper management Back To School to Metro 2 workshops, e-learning courses and seminars.   The industry Reporting Standards of Metro 2 to insure integrity and consistency of credit information requires:  All Accounts must be reported a minimum of once per month.  Prompt immediate and button-pushing automatic mid cycle updates are required especially for Closed, Disputed and accounts Affected by Natural or Declared Disaster.  XXXX  has failed to meet these and other Metro 2 obligations because as of XXXX, my last XXXX  update to XXXX  and Experian was XXXX per the attached.  Pursuant to section 1682 et seq of the FCRA, XXXX  and every CRA may be liable for willfully and negligently failing to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy.  XXXX  is out of control. XXXX  numerous deliberate deficiencies of illegally withholding and inaccurately concealing and reporting false and missing required account data is purposely intended to negatively affect a consumer credit score in complete willful violation of the FCRA.  XXXX  has escalated my complaint issues to a high level executive department so there is no defense or excuse of new or inexperienced employees or other type of employee error or negligence as my dispute issue responses are purportedly prepared and investigated by senior level experience staff and reviewed by higher level experienced staff.  While Rule 11 sanction requests for frivolous conduct in federal courts permit violators to escape sanctions due to a 30 day safe harbor, willful violations of the FCRA cannot escape statutory and punitive damages. Some attorneys prefer to immediately file FCRA lawsuits upon discovery of violations. My efforts are intended to provide repeated notice of XXXX  illegal conduct so that FCRA violations can be corrected to mitigate damages.  If XXXX  willfully continues to violate the FCRA despite numerous warnings, higher punitive damages will be incurred.  I believe that XXXX  will never admit FCRA violations due to its internal policies for dealing with FCRA violation complaints.  So despite my indisputable detail of widespread and systematic illegal conduct known to be illegal, I expect XXXX  will continue to willfully violate the FCRA rather than just delete my account permanently from every CRA.  CFPB Director XXXX XXXX recently said around XXXX XXXX XXXX: XXXX  is an out/of-control repeat offender that believes it is above the law.  I am concerned that XXXX  leadership is either unwilling or incapable of operating its businesses lawfully.   My XXXX  issues similarly prove that XXXX  is an out-of-control repeat offender that refuses to comply with the FCRA and is incapable of understanding and implementing Metro 2 and the most basic FCRA provisions for reporting closed, disputed, affected by natural or declared disaster accounts and data.  On XXXX XXXX XXXX Florida Attorney General XXXX XXXX  announced a settlement agreement with 34 attorneys generals and XXXX  that included about XXXX XXXX in relief nationally including future injunctive relief requiring that XXXX shall maintain policies and procedures with respect to deferments, forbearances, modifications, and other related servicing and collection matters, and ensure that these policies and procedures are followed by its employees.  I maintain that the violations of the FCRA by XXXX and its refusal to mark my offered payment deferrals due to Hurricane Ian on my credit reports constitute violations of it injunction which I will address counsel for the Florida AG.  The AG injunction also stated: XXXX  shall comply with the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Chapter 501, Part II, Florida Statutes.  Obviously, XXXX  willful and malicious violations of the FCRA clearly constitute grave violations of Floridas Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices also enjoined by the injunction relief agreed to by XXXX.  XXXX  is just out of control and incapable of complying with its obligations.  Metro 2 and the FCRA is just too complicated for XXXX  to administer as required mandating permanent deletion of my disputed and closed account from my credit report.  XXXX  retaliated against me for seeking deferrals offered and accepted automatically and required due to Hurricane Ian resulting in unacceptable FCRA violations and a complete disregard for requirements of Metro 2.  I insist on 100% compliance with the requirements of Metro 2 and the FCRA to prevent the inaccuracies and incomplete credit reporting.  Moreover, I demand a copy of every XXXX  Metro 2 code filed so that I can compare codes submitted versus paper reports received.  My credit file is the Metro 2 codes which is inconsistent and quite different from my paper credit reports as the Metro 2 files contain data that is not on my paper reports.  Failure to provide me with past Metro 2 filings shall constitute the same FCRA violation as failing to provide an English paper credit report or electronic copy of my credit report.  Keep in mind that an analysis of my Metro 2 codes show that I was in the past 60 days late which is impossible as my paper reports showed that I was never late to any creditor.  The Metro 2 coding is so complicated that inaccurate negative and derogatory data will always exist in Metro 2 which is not shown on a paper report to a consumer.  Metro 2 must be exactly the same as a XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2023-02-17T10:42:31.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"32836","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"6583808","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2023-02-17T10:42:19.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Account status incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["How <em>about</em> the mandatory Date of First Delinquency that furnishers and CRAs never report accurately. It is <em>about</em> time <em>XXXX</em>  sends its employees Back to School to learn <em>about</em> its obligations to insure maximum possible accuracy coding required under Metro 2/e-OSCAR/FCRA/FCBA/etc.  Garbage IN means Garbage OUT. Worst yet is leaving mandatory required fields BLANK in complete disregard for the requirements of Metro 2 and the FCRA."]},"sort":[3.7312145,"6583808"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6583809","_score":3.7234373,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Metro 2 / e-OSCAR Compliance Deficiencies and FCRA willful violations - XXXX Bank credit card XXXX  inaccurately reported in Metro 2 as old card XXXX\n\n- [ ] Despite my clear disputes for willful FCRA violations, XXXX  and every CRA are NOT Metro 2 Compliant which should have forced and requested e-OSCAR to verify whether every item and every required field is filled in accurately, mandatorily and logically 100% perfect to meet compliance standards, as set forth in the 355 page Credit Reporting Resource Guide to meet ALL of the requirements of the FCRA, FCBA, and ECOA to insure maximum accurate and complete information on my credit history.  My paper credit reports of XXXX XXXX XXXX TransUnion of XXXX  showed that I never missed a payment to any creditor.  However, supplemental and additional data omitted illegally from my paper credit report but included in Metro 2 files in XXXX XXXX showed that I had been 60 days past due with a 100% perfect which is not only illogical but impossible as I have always had a perfect payment record on every account.  Numerous credit scoring and credit data analysis firms such as XXXX XXXX access Metro 2 credit data to report scores and account changes and payment records.  Metro 2 coding errors and data concealed from paper credit reports prevents errors from being known and corrected by consumers in willful violation of the FCRA. Metro 2 is available to lenders who use information concealed from consumers which most likely contains inaccurate data such as late payments.  My credit score was 200+ points below what it should have been due to the concealed and inaccurate 60 day late payment inside Metro 2 and concealed from my paper reports.  I have complained to every CRA and the improper verification responses have been to ask me what data is incorrect instead of researching my Metro 2 data to tell me what data is in Metro 2 that is concealed from my paper credit reports.  Consumers are scammed by Metro 2 inaccurate data concealed from paper reports resulting in a systematic inappropriate reporting system in substantial and known violation of laws including the FCRA.  In fact, the whole Metro 2 system is useless since it contains data visible to others but concealed from consumers.  How can a consumer check data for accuracy on paper credit reports when a complete set of conflicting and additional supplemental data is available inside Metro 2 yet undiscoverable, concealed and Unknown to innocent unsuspecting consumers???  Metro 2 even scams sophisticated consumers who frequently check paper credit reports fir accuracy. Therefore, my XXXX Closed account plus all my closed accounts must be permanently deleted from every CRA unless and until an independent unbiased capable entity certifies that all Metro 2 data is 100% accurately coded and properly incorporated in my paper data credit reports so that Metro 2 data is 100% identical to my paper reports. I maintain that Metro 2 data will always contain data not available and not visible on paper credit reports in willful violation of the FCRA.  Therefore, my XXXX and every CRA must promptly permanently delete my XXXX and other closed accounts and, in the interim until deletion, report accounts as disputed by consumer, closed by consumer, consumer affected by a natural or declared disaster, payment deferred, affected by COVID-19,  etc for which Metro 2 does not even have the fields and capability to accurately insure such required items are reported completely, consistently, logically and accurately monthly without the possibility of change through updates causing improper removal of codes and code replacements.  XXXX  does not understand this and it is incompetent and incapable of complying with the FCRA and Metro 2 mandatory coding as will be shown herein.  This matter is ripe for investigation by the CFPB and Florida AG who has an injunction against XXXX  for deceptive, unfair and unlawful trade practices.  I need from XXXX every Metro 2 data submission since XXXX  with a manual reconciliation to explain each and every paper entry in my credit report for every item and field.  I need the Metro 2 transcribed to what is actually in its system as I know the codes (such as XA, XB, XC, XD, XE, XFetc) and I know what the codes mean but I do not know exactly what code has been reported since coding may be illogically, subjective, improper, temporary and changing with erroneous and inconsistent coding. My credit reports change multiple time daily with codes removed, replaced, removed, replaced, removed, etc erroneously and inaccurately in willful violations of the FCRA.  Once my account is closed it must remain as closed but a furnisher subsequently reporting a closed account as disputed usually will remove the closed account code in violation of the FCRA and replace it with a dispute code instead of keeping both the closed and disputed designation.  Garbage in means garbage out.  Metro 2 gets complicated in my case when I have a XXXX  acct with a wrong account number which is closed, disputed, affected by a natural or declared disaster, payment deferred, paid from insurance, failed to be reported monthly, etc where the Metro 2 codes cannot properly report the mandatory obligated FCRA requirements.  Moreover, XXXX has shown that it is incapable of understanding Metro 2 and is unqualified and unwilling to report accurate credit data.  The integrity and reportability of my XXXX and other closed accounts is called into question as mandatory data fields are missing, contested and cannot be verified and certified as perfectly compliant, mandating deletion entirely.  Not only are numerous required fields in segments missing entirely, but many fields are inaccurate, and more importantly, Furnishers do not understand how to accurately code the complex mandatory compliance codes.  XXXX does not even know what a closed account is under Metro 2 so it inaccurately reported my account that I closed in XXXX XXXX as open and refuses to mark my account as closed as required by the FCRA and Metro 2.  XXXX claims that it closed my account to purchases when I closed my account but it will never mark my account on my credit report as Closed unless and until I pay my balance in full.  All XXXX has to do is read Metro 2 to see that an account is closed by a consumer when requested even if there is a balance.  Metro 2 and the FCRA clearly requires marking my account as closed promptly after my admitted closure in XXXX.  If XXXX does not understand Metro 2 and the FCRA and its obligations and prohibitions how can XXXX be permitted to continue to report under Metro 2??? It is almost 2 months and XXXX  has failed to mark my account as closed, disputed, affected by natural or declared disaster on a monthly basis?  My closed XXXX  account is still willfully inaccurate as it is still reported as OPEN on XXXX on my 3 credit reports,  As of XXXX, XXXX  last reported my account to TransUnion on XXXX in willful violation of the Metro 2 requirement to report monthly.    CRAs know Metro 2 requires monthly reporting.  CRAs have the responsibility to delete my account before XXXX  responds.  XXXX  does not even know how  to report account numbers accurately in Metro 2 as my account number continues to be reported as XXXX even though my account number was changed to XXXX about 3 years ago.  Metro 2 is too complicated for XXXX  to use and it is obvious that it does not understand how to change account numbers or it just shortcuts its obligations and refuses to accurately report my account accurately.  Simply stated, XXXX  is not Metro 2 compliant as it does not understand  the system and the 355 page guidelines  requiring proper coding for fields for Closed, Disputed, inaccurate data and account numbers and accounts affected by COVID and natural and declared disasters, all of which are missing from my XXXX  file for months. XXXX  has failed to monthly report my account since it last reported to TransUnion on XXXX as of XXXX.  Clearly, XXXX  is not Metro 2 compliant mandating deletion.  XXXX  does not have the ability or desire to accurately report. Metro 2 field 17A must include DA immediately to prevent irreparable harm and to avoid further willful FCRA violations with punitive damages exceeding $100,000 based on 11th circuit USCA decisions for jury awards of $80,000 for a single failure to report the account as disputed.  XXXX  is a recalcitrant lender who does not know the law and refuses to follow its known obligations.  XXXX  should attempt to mitigate damages instead of alienating me and increasing its obligation to pay me significant damages. I claim past statutory and other damages to offset the frivolous and uncollectable disputed balance which I claim is XXXX, mandating dismissal and deletion of my XXXX  account permanently.  I demand XXXX  and every CRA disclose every Metro 2 coded field since XXXX to ascertain what is actually exactly reported and at the same time asking them to manually reconcile paper conflicts.   I do not understand why XXXX  refuses to immediately mark my account as Closed, disputed, deferred, affected by COVID and a natural disaster, etc.  What is its sinister goal???? A Metro 2 Compliance request triggers e-OSCAR to electronically evaluate whether every piece of data was mandatorily perfect and complete Metro 2 Formatted Reporting Standards was properly reported within the compliance standards set forth by the FCRA.  CDIA definitions that go along with Metro 2 Language are either unknown, not read, not considered, or just purposely evaded by XXXX  or purposely violated due to incompetence or willful disregard.  Obviously, a systematic problem exists at XXXX  affecting its similarly situated cardholders.  Closed accounts at XXXX  are never reported as closed in willful violation of the FCRA.  I demand that XXXX  immediately stop reporting my account as OPEN.   My account is closed since XXXX and such date closed is required to be permanently entered into Metro 2.  XXXX  is not Metro 2 Compliant mandating permanent deletion of my account from every CRA.  Compliance Condition Codes are used to reflect accounts Closed at Consumers Request AND Accounts Disputed By Consumer to comply with mandatory reporting under the FCRA, FCBA and FDCPA.  XXXX  does not even know the Definition of a closed account is and what a dispute is and it has not put any of the multiple mandatory codes into Metro 2 in complete and willful violation of the FCRA and other laws, both State and Federal.  XXXX  knows that my account is Closed and disputed yet it knowingly refuses to enter any Compliance Condition Codes in willful violation of the FCRA.  Simply stated, no code means XXXX  is not Metro 2 Compliant mandating permanent deletion of my account from every CRA.  My TransUnion and XXXX  reports are not reported monthly as required under Metro 2. (See Attached XXXX  reports of XXXX and XXXX showing XXXX as last reported date). Rather than promptly reporting my account as CLOSED on XXXX as required with a simple update, XXXX  completely stopped reporting since XXXX  in violation of Metro 2. Apparently, XXXX  does not know how to enter mid cycle updates or it is just incapable of monthly reporting and mandatory prompt and immediate mid-cycle updates required by Metro 2 to comply with the FCRA.  My attached XXXX  report of XXXX shows inaccurately shows my XXXX  account number as XXXX  instead of XXXX. an inaccurate variable/adjustable rate, an inaccurate date of last payment, missing data for XXXX, XXXX etc,, inaccurate date of last activity, missing deferral date, missing date closed, missing Closed account status, missing dispute code and other FCRA compliance codes.  Despite my disputes, XXXX  has failed to promptly and immediately update inaccurate disputed information to CRAs apparently willfully or because it does not understand how to update with Metro 2 / e-OSCAR protocols.  Reporting inaccuracies must be corrected promptly in order to comply with the FCRA.  See section 623(a)(2)(B).  The e-OSCAR Consumer Dispute System is designed and required to have built-in edits and safeguards to prevent illogical responses and impossible entries such as deletion of a closed account status resulting in a closed account inaccurately reported as open.  Similarly, once a consumer is marked as deceased, Metro 2 must prevent the person to be reported as alive by not permitting illogical coding entries. Replacing a required field with a blank field or zero to force Metro 2 to accept data for updates and submission must not be tolerated.  The CFPB website, like most websites, prevents submission until all required fields are marked and entered.  Metro 2 has no such controls so it allows submission of blank and inconsistent data without any effective checks and controls or allows furnished to evade requirements.  The numerous blank data fields demonstrate that XXXX  cannot and has not complied with Metro 2 standards and any one of the multiple blank required fields is grounds, standing alone, to delete my entire account for Metro 2 Compliance deficiencies and FCRA violations.  Every Metro 2 field has a purpose and no field must be blank under any scenario.  The entire Metro 2 Compliance safeguards are nonexistent.  Information within a dispute response must be complete and logical to insure maximum possible accuracy pursuant to well settled law. There are multiple coding duplicate safeguards to insure Metro 2 compliance.  For example not only does Metro 2 require a permanent Compliance Code for a closed account to comply with the FCRA but Metro 2 requires the entry of the actual DATE CLOSED so the closed status must be reported in 2 fields to prevent coding evasion.  Purposely entering blank required fields to force Metro 2 to update a submission constitutes a willful and deliberate violation of the FCRA and Metro 2 intended protocols. The incomplete, delayed and inaccurate  XXXX  reporting, with missing mandatory and required Metro 2 fields, should have required e-OSCAR to delete my account due to multiple Metro 2 Compliance deficiencies.  XXXX  should have been notified by CRAs of its reporting deficiencies or otherwise blocked from reporting entirely.  XXXX  has been negligent by failing to update its internal controls and record keeping to avoid and prevent re-reporting incorrect and illogical information.  CRRG Frequently Asked Questions and Answer, Question 64, discusses How should a replacement credit card be reported. XXXX  either does not have competent staff to understand Metro 2 or it just refuses to comply to save money.  In my case, my old acct # XXXX  was required to be updated with the new account number of #XXXX  (changed about 3 years ago) so XXXX  is NOT 100% Metro 2 Compliant mandating deletion.  Exact account number reporting is mandatory for many reasons including an internal control to prevent duplicate reporting of accounts especially when accounts are sold or transferred to others.  I have made multiple disputes but not only has XXXX  noticed yet failed to fix the obvious account number inaccurate account number but not one CRA has noticed the error nor forced Metro 2 updating of the correct account number as required to be Metro 2 compliant.  My XXXX  paper report conceals the last 4 digits of my XXXX  account number so I could not discover the inaccurate account numbers and inaccurate reporting in willful violation of the FCRA. On the other hand, TransUnion just reports just the last 4 numbers of XXXX  account on my paper so that the complete account number is discoverable to scammers by merely looking at 2 separate credit reports.  The FCRA and Metro 2 require the complete account number into Metro 2 and paper credit reports to insure accuracy and prevent duplication.   The ineffective procedure of partially blocking 4 or more account numbers on paper reports is counterproductive, achieves no valuable benefit or protection and deprives consumers of the right to determine accuracy especially if accounts are transferred. Since there is $0 liability for credit fraud to consumers, complete account numbers must be reported on every CRA pursuant to the FCRA especially on Closed accounts, such as XXXX, which should be blocked.  The partially blocking of account numbers has protections for furnishers and no benefits for consumers, so every account on my credit report is inaccurate and not Metro 2 Compliant mandating deletion of every account including my XXXX  account. CRRG answer to Question 58 required XXXX  to Report my account as deferred along with Special Comment AW (Affected by Natural or Declared Disaster) and other coding mandatory field entries negligently or intentional omitted in violation of the FCRA.  As XXXX  knows I live in XXXX  and I told it many times that I took a direct hit from Hurricane Ian in XXXX XXXX and I have been seriously affected by the FEMA declared natural disaster, not only has XXXX  willfully violated its specific obligation under the FCRA to report on my credit report  Affected By Natural or Declared Disaster, Compliance code AW, but it claims I am late despite the prohibition of late reporting due to Hurricane Ian.  Again, XXXX  is apparently deliberately negligent or untrained in meeting its mandatory obligations under Metro 2 contained in the 355 page Guide or it has maliciously and purposely violated the FCRA to hopefully induce me to pay disputed account charges thereby entitling me to $10,000+ in statutory and punitive damages so my claims exceed the smaller XXXX  disputed claim.  XXXX  and every CRA must enter account status code DA in field 17A to avoid and mitigate damages.  How about the mandatory Date of First Delinquency that furnishers and CRAs never report accurately. It is about time XXXX  sends its employees Back to School to learn about its obligations to insure maximum possible accuracy coding required under Metro 2/e-OSCAR/FCRA/FCBA/etc.  Garbage IN means Garbage OUT. Worst yet is leaving mandatory required fields BLANK in complete disregard for the requirements of Metro 2 and the FCRA.  Exhibit 8 of the CRRG regarding Compliance Condition Codes, which is reported in Field 20 of the Base Segment, is used to reflect accounts Closed at Consumers Request, and, inter Alia, consumer disputes under the FCBA, FDCPA and FCRA.  Numerous Condition Codes exist (XA, XB, XC, XD, XE, XF, XI, XH, XJ etc) exist mandating reporting Accounts Closed at Consumers Request with the DEFINITION:  Reported when a consumer requested an account be CLOSED with an Important Note: Report the DATE CLOSED as the date the account was CLOSED TO FURTHER PURCHASES which XXXX  acknowledges was in XXXX XXXX  Field Definitions in Metro 2 for #26 state: Date Closed  the date the account was closed to further purchases there may be a BALANCE DUE.  I need to repeat again and again what the FCRA and Metro 2 require in the 355 page guide.  Definition: Reported when a consumer requested an account be closed with an Important Note: Report the Date Closed as the Date the account was closed to further purchaseswhich XXXX  letter acknowledges was in XXXX. Again, Field Definitions for #26 Date Closedthe date the account was closed to further purchasesthere may be a balance due.  There can be absolutely no doubt that XXXX  has no idea of what a Closed account is and what the FCRA, case law, and the 355 page Metro 2 guide defines.  Or worse it has lied, lied, lied to federal investigators and its own superiors mandating disciplinary action against employees conspiring to violate the FCRA.  XXXX  top management needs to take disciplinary action against its staff for unconscionable conduct. XXXX  frivolous and illegal position that it will never report my account as closed unless and until I pay the entire balance in full is absolutely ridiculous and in willful and malicious disregard for the FCRA mandating maximum possible Statutory and Punitive damages plus Attorney Fees exceeding $100,000.  Does XXXX  want a US District Court jury to punish it if it is wrong?  Does XXXX  want to spend $50,000 in legal fees and related expenses only to lose?  Does XXXX  want a US District Court to ask a US Magistrate Judge to issue a Report of Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law to be reviewed by the US District Court Judge for judgment and Rule 11 sanctions?  Does XXXX  want the CFPB and the Florida AG to prosecute it?  Does XXXX  employees want to risk losing their jobs for knowingly, deliberately, maliciously, negligently and purposely violating the FCRA in bad faith?  Is there criminal conduct under multiple federal statutes for lying to federal authorities?  XXXX  top management and  below have no idea what the FCRA and Metro 2 straight forward Definitions are for a closed account or worst it knows my account is closed yet it continues to illegally report my account as Open for a sinister purpose.  XXXX  knows that my account was closed yet it refuses to report my account as Closed in willful violation of the FCRA, Metro 2 etc even though it acknowledges my phone call demand to close my account in XXXX resulting in not only a closure, by definition, but XXXX  blocking my account from further purchases thereby meeting the Metro 2 definition of a Closed account.  XXXX  falsely claims that my account will NEVER be reported as closed until my entire balance is paid in full.  I closed my account in XXXX  but XXXX  refuses to report my account as closed and just willfully violated the FCRA and Metro 2 by reporting my account as OPEN.  XXXX  had systematically, maliciously, deliberately and willfully violated the FCRA and Metro 2 resulting in inaccurate and incomplete reporting of data including blank data and codes in data fields in Metro 2 that XXXX  and CRAs refuse to adequately investigate.  Once I called XXXX  by phone and demanded it close my account and XXXX  at that time processed my closure request telling me my account was now closed telling me the account was blocked from further purchasers so I needed to advise merchants not to use my closed account further, XXXX  was required to PROMPTLY in a matter of a few days or minutes (not months) report my Account As Closed By Consumer forever keeping it Closed with every CRA never to be changed or deleted. Reporting an account as closed should be an instantaneous and automatic credit reporting process as it happens so frequently.  XXXX  blocked my account from further purchasers and read me the disclosure statement on its recorded line that my account was closed which I demand a certified copy of such transcript herein as additional proof of XXXX  wrongdoing.  This is certainly a learning lesson for XXXX  so its staff may understand and comply with its obligations under the FCRA and Metro 2.  Treating Consumers as stupid with disrespect is a terrible way to respond to bona fide complaints and disputes., especially when CFPB complaints can be viewed online for the public to read.  Does XXXX  really want to risk multi jurisdictional civil and criminal litigation over the Definition of a Closed Account?  The Definition of what a Closed account under the FCRA and Metro 2 is absolutely clear and its repeated definitions cannot be challenged under any scenario. Your Law firms will risk damaging their reputation and licenses by claiming my Closed XXXX  account is still Open when faced with a Rule 11 motion and action for sanctions for frivolous conduct.  What is wrong with XXXX? Is your XXXX parent telling you to lie to federal authorities?  Are your executives stupid?  Do you think the CFPB is stupid? Do you think a jury and US District Court Judges are stupid?  Well, I am obviously NOT stupid and it is obvious that I am furious about the entire credit reporting system and its lack of controls.  The CFPB knows and has acknowledged unacceptable systematic FCRA violations. I just cant believe XXXX  insists on reporting my Closed account as Open.  Keep being STUPID and XXXX  will pay bigger and bigger  serious consequences.  Customers must be treated with respect not treated as Stupid by untrained inexperienced or stupid employees who do not act in the banks best interest.  When I filed my complaint with the CFPB, you should have taken the complaint seriously and tried everything to satisfy me by even giving me more than I asked for instead of being stupid.  XXXX  should have reduced my interest to 0% and just offer to pay me a XXXX statutory damage amount while not admitting or denying wrongdoing.  Moreover, XXXX  should have offered to permanently delete my account from every CRA as that would cost XXXX.  But XXXX  is not only stubborn but a stupid recalcitrant lender who would never offer a $1 concession but would prefer to spend millions rather than make needed token concessions. Businesses pay huge sums to answer customer service phone calls and concessions are the cheapest and most effective way to satisfy and retain customers.  But obviously, XXXX  has alienated me (and others similarly situated) by treating me as stupid even after filing a CFPB complaint.  What would Banco XXXX  Parent in XXXX  say when matters get out of Control and no one wants to acquire you?  I could continue for 20 more pages quoting the FCRA, Metro 2 Guidelines, statutory intent, criminal federal statutes, CFPB policies, Case law etc but XXXX  is required to know all that and have its Staff trained and knowledgeable.  This Complaint will certainly assist XXXX  staff in understanding its obligations under the FCRA and Metro 2.   I am entitled to relief as a consultant would charge huge amounts for what I have told you about your deficiencies.  Once my account was closed, XXXX  was prohibited to report my account with a variable interest rate so again XXXX  coding with a variable rate is inaccurate which everyone missed after closure.  XXXX  needs to send its staff and upper management Back To School to Metro 2 workshops, e-learning courses and seminars.   The industry Reporting Standards of Metro 2 to insure integrity and consistency of credit information requires:  All Accounts must be reported a minimum of once per month.  Prompt immediate and button-pushing automatic mid cycle updates are required especially for Closed, Disputed and accounts Affected by Natural or Declared Disaster.  XXXX  has failed to meet these and other Metro 2 obligations because as of XXXX, my last XXXX  update to TransUnion and XXXX was XXXX per the attached.  Pursuant to section 1682 et seq of the FCRA, XXXX  and every CRA may be liable for willfully and negligently failing to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy.  XXXX  is out of control. XXXX  numerous deliberate deficiencies of illegally withholding and inaccurately concealing and reporting false and missing required account data is purposely intended to negatively affect a consumer credit score in complete willful violation of the FCRA.  XXXX  has escalated my complaint issues to a high level executive department so there is no defense or excuse of new or inexperienced employees or other type of employee error or negligence as my dispute issue responses are purportedly prepared and investigated by senior level experience staff and reviewed by higher level experienced staff.  While Rule 11 sanction requests for frivolous conduct in federal courts permit violators to escape sanctions due to a 30 day safe harbor, willful violations of the FCRA cannot escape statutory and punitive damages. Some attorneys prefer to immediately file FCRA lawsuits upon discovery of violations. My efforts are intended to provide repeated notice of XXXX  illegal conduct so that FCRA violations can be corrected to mitigate damages.  If XXXX  willfully continues to violate the FCRA despite numerous warnings, higher punitive damages will be incurred.  I believe that XXXX  will never admit FCRA violations due to its internal policies for dealing with FCRA violation complaints.  So despite my indisputable detail of widespread and systematic illegal conduct known to be illegal, I expect XXXX  will continue to willfully violate the FCRA rather than just delete my account permanently from every CRA.  CFPB Director XXXX XXXX recently said around XXXX XXXX XXXX: TransUnion is an out/of-control repeat offender that believes it is above the law.  I am concerned that TransUnions leadership is either unwilling or incapable of operating its businesses lawfully.   My XXXX  issues similarly prove that XXXX  is an out-of-control repeat offender that refuses to comply with the FCRA and is incapable of understanding and implementing Metro 2 and the most basic FCRA provisions for reporting closed, disputed, affected by natural or declared disaster accounts and data.  On XXXX XXXX XXXX, Florida Attorney General XXXX XXXX announced a settlement agreement with 34 attorneys generals and XXXX  that included about XXXX XXXX  in relief nationally including future injunctive relief requiring that XXXX  shall maintain policies and procedures with respect to deferments, forbearances, modifications, and other related servicing and collection matters, and ensure that these policies and procedures are followed by its employees.  I maintain that the violations of the FCRA by XXXX  and its refusal to mark my offered payment deferrals due to Hurricane Ian on my credit reports constitute violations of it injunction which I will address counsel for the Florida AG.  The AG injunction also stated: XXXX  shall comply with the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Chapter 501, Part II, Florida Statutes.  Obviously, XXXX  willful and malicious violations of the FCRA clearly constitute grave violations of Floridas Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices also enjoined by the injunction relief agreed to by XXXX.  XXXX  is just out of control and incapable of complying with its obligations.  Metro 2 and the FCRA is just too complicated for XXXX to administer as required mandating permanent deletion of my disputed and closed account from my credit report.  XXXX retaliated against me for seeking deferrals offered and accepted automatically and required due to Hurricane Ian resulting in unacceptable FCRA violations and a complete disregard for requirements of Metro 2.  I insist on 100% compliance with the requirements of Metro 2 and the FCRA to prevent the inaccuracies and incomplete credit reporting.  Moreover, I demand a copy of every XXXX Metro 2 code filed so that I can compare codes submitted versus paper reports received.  My credit file is the Metro 2 codes which is inconsistent and quite different from my paper credit reports as the Metro 2 files contain data that is not on my paper reports.  Failure to provide me with past Metro 2 filings shall constitute the same FCRA violation as failing to provide an English paper credit report or electronic copy of my credit report.  Keep in mind that an analysis of my Metro 2 codes show that I was in the past 60 days late which is impossible as my paper reports showed that I was never late to any creditor.  The Metro 2 coding is so complicated that inaccurate negative and derogatory data will always exist in Metro 2 which is not shown on a paper report to a consumer.  Metro 2 must be exactly the same as a XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2023-02-17T10:42:31.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"32836","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"6583809","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2023-02-17T10:42:19.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Account status incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["How <em>about</em> the mandatory Date of First Delinquency that furnishers and CRAs never report accurately. It is <em>about</em> time <em>XXXX</em>  sends its employees Back to School to learn <em>about</em> its obligations to insure maximum possible accuracy coding required under Metro 2/e-OSCAR/FCRA/FCBA/etc.  Garbage IN means Garbage OUT. Worst yet is leaving mandatory required fields BLANK in complete disregard for the requirements of Metro 2 and the FCRA."]},"sort":[3.7234373,"6583809"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"2759570","_score":3.2849145,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"This complaint and web article is an update from XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX To XXXX. XXXX : Stop Playing Games. Turn over the keys! \nAs Standing Trustee, You ALONE, are Responsible for all Matters Related to Our Assets & Property. To Not Comply is in Defiance of Federal & State Laws! \n\nTO : XXXX XXXX XXXX, Chief Executive Officer XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. \n\nXXXX, NC XXXX WARNING! \n\n\n\n\n\nTAKE HEED Who is Liable? \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nAccording to Federal and State Municipal and Local Statutory Laws and Codes, that would be : YOU! \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nBecause your subordinates can not be used as a shield to hide you from your legal transgressions. \n\n\n\n( XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX Assistant Vice President/Trustee XXXX XXXX : Assistant Vice President, Beneficiary, Bank of America, as \" Servicer '' XXXX XXXX? Mortgage Complaint Resolution ) Legal Sins that continuously and continually are causing the loss of XXXX XXXX and property. \n\n\n\n\n\n\nAt a compounding cost of countless dollars and holdings. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nBut not without financial and legally grave consequences. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nBoth Civil and Criminal \" Civil Cases vs. Criminal Cases - Key Differences Civil cases usually involve private disputes between persons or organizations. Criminal cases involve an action that is considered to be harmful to society as a whole. Below is a comparison of the key differences between civil and criminal cases. '' ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) '' For you, it 's the calm before the storm. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nI need those keys, or you 'll be forced out of seclusion by my rightful and legally permitted plan of action. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nI will change the lock ( which I planned to do anywy ) and move in without further notice. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nAND ... ..who 'll take the punitive damages liability, the penalty and criminal code punishment if my efforts to extend an Olive Branch to Bank of America falls through? \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nThe Bank of America Board Chair and CEO, that 's whom. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nI 've requested the keys to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX , CA , but no more. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nNow, I 'm demanding them AND QUICK! \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nEspecially since learning that the CEO has the ability to hand over those keys because he has first hand access to the property. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nI will start by confronting you on your tactics, the same asXXXX XXXX XXXX, United States Senator, as he did relative to Bank of America, or should I say, \" your '' Swipe Fees? \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\" First, there is no evidence that your bank could not continue to offer debit cards profitably just with the revenue you will receive under the generous maximum interchange fee rates that the Federal Reserve has established. The Fed found that it costs a bank on average around 7 cents to conduct a debit transaction, and likely far less for a bank with your economies of scale.\n\nUnder the Feds rule you will be allowed to profit handsomely by collecting around 24 cents per transaction. Your decision to charge a new monthly debit fee is an overt attempt to make even more profit off the backs of your customers. \n\n\n\nSecond, I am aware that you and your industry seek to blame swipe fee reform, which I drafted and Congress enacted, for your decision to raise fees on your customers. However, this justification does not add up. According to industry analysts your bank has 38.7 million debit cardholders. Assuming that these cardholders remain your customers and pay your new {$5.00} dollar fee, Bank of America will make an estimated {$2.00} billion annually from this fee on top of the enormous profit it will already receive under the Feds swipe fee rates. \n\n\n\nYet you recently claimed in an SEC filing that the revenue impact of swipe fee reform on your bank would be significantly less than {$2.00} billion - even if the Fed had set a XXXX cent cap rather than the XXXX cent cap they established. It appears that your new fee will result in another windfall for your bank with swipe fee reform as an excuse. \n\n\n\nI challenge you to prove otherwise. \n\n\n\n\n\nThe American people deserve to know the real story about the swipe fee system and the way big banks have colluded to profit excessively at the expense of our nations businesses and consumers. Debit and credit card swipe fees generate billions for your bank each year. But you did not earn these fees by bettering your competitors in a free market, which is how Main Street businesses have to make their money. \n\n\n\nRather, you earned these billions because the Visa and MasterCard duopoly fixed the same high swipe fee rates for your bank that they did for every other bank, thereby immunizing this revenue stream from competitive pressures that would hold fees at a reasonable level. \n\n\n\nNow that the truth about the anti-competitive swipe fee system has been exposed and the process of reform has begun, banks like yours are desperately looking to keep the money flowing like it did in the past. \n\n\n\nAnd as your new fee demonstrates, you are now looking for ways to make even more lucrative profits off of debit cards than you did before. I do not think your customers will be fooled by this. '' The \" American People '' and I, deserve and demand to know why you 're paying lip service to the approval and recording of a \" Clear Title '' Document. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nA Reconveyance indigenous to our referenced property that you knew full well and acknowledged. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nThat which already has been evident since XX/XX/XXXX, thanks to a Court Ordered Discharge Decree ofa Chapter XXXX Judge and Trustee. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nEspecially in light of your Mortgage racketeering history. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nFirst, it was countrywide Loans, CEOXXXX XXXX XXXX illegally concocted a false claim of ownership, even though we never successfully contracted any agreement with that Company. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nWhile under your Trusteeship, XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX joined XXXX XXXX XXXX in a racket to swindle us of possession of our property. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nThis charade occurring fewer than two months before we were unceremoniously kicked out of property that you personally declared us as owners, \" Under Penalty of Perjury. '' \" Bank of America tops list of mortgage complaints by borrowers The lender has accounted for 30 % of complaints to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, with two-thirds of them involving modifications. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX|By XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Bank of America noted that the bureau 's website shows 98 % of the problems ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. , which handles customer service on about 15 % of U.S. home loans, has accounted for 30 % of the mortgage complaints logged by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau , according to a new database made public by the federal watchdog. \n\n\n\nThe level of customer discontent far greater than at home-lending rivals XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX reflects BofA 's struggles since its XX/XX/XXXX acquisition of XXXX XXXX XXXX. \n\n\n\nin XXXX. Countrywide had become the No. 1 mortgage firm by specializing in subprime and other high-risk loans. \n\nBofA, which has recorded tens of billions of dollars in losses on Countrywide loans, was the object of 15,136 mortgage complaints since XX/XX/XXXX,  when the consumer bureau began taking complaints about home loans. \n\n\nThe bank noted that the bureau 's website shows that 98 % of the problems have been resolved. '' The way it looks to me, XXXX XXXX XXXX, has assumed possession of the house XXXX XXXX XXXX Stole from XXXX XXXX & XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. \n\n\n\n\n\nIn essence, that makes you the succeeding Swindler. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nThat means for each day you withhold possession from us, the more for which you shall answer. \n\n\n\n\" California Theft / Larceny Law Theft ( also calledlarceny ) is a crime against property in California. To provetheft, a prosecutor must establish the defendant 's intent to permanently take or withhold the property owner 's possession or right to the property -- in other words, thespecific intent to steal. Theft can take on many forms depending on the type of property taken as it can involve : Personal property ; Money ; Real property ; or The value of labor or services. \n\n\nCalifornia Code, Penal Code - PEN 484 | '' \" XXXX XXXX XXXX Announces Upsize and Pricing of Public Offering of Common Shares XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX  Eastern Standard Time A story in XXXX, says that several Bank and Mortgage Company CEO 's have \" bought out '' XXXX XXXX, the thief who stole XXXX. \n\n\" Sometimes, it can take place entirely without the owner 's knowledge. However, theft can also occur where an owner entrusts property to another for a temporary or ongoing purpose and the recipient then fails to return the property when due. \n\n\nTheft is either classified as petty theft or grand theft in California, a difference that depends on the value of the property. Generally, grand theft exists where the property is valued above {$950.00}, but there are some exceptions, such as where the property is taken from the victim 's person or where the property taken consists of a firearm. '' XXXX XXXX XXXX  '' Or, put another way ; received Stolen Goods `` Receiving Stolen Property What Does It Mean to \" Receive Stolen Property ''? \n\n\nReceiving stolen property is acrime to purchase or accept property that you know or believe was obtained through theft.The crime is separate from robbery, extortion, or theft.Receiving stolen property is a crime in order to deter people from aiding or rewarding thieves by buying stolen property, concealing stolen property, and to deter theft in general. \n\n\n\nReceiving stolen propertymay be a misdemeanor or felony. '' This is in reference to Our home, our assetsin particular, and a plantation of homes in general. \n\n\n\" In order to be convicted of receiving stolen property, the prosecution must show Property Was In Fact Stolen : In order to be convicted of a receipt of stolen property, the property must actually be in a stolen status. \n\nThis means that the police can not set up the defendant to receive the stolen property just to bust him or her. \n\nKnowledge : The defendant must have knowledge that the property was stolen, or should have known, that the property was stolen Intent to Defraud Owner : The defendant had intent to deprive the owner of his or her property, such as by keeping it, selling it, or giving it away to another party. '' XXXX \" owned '' XXXX XXXX, which now is in the hands of several racketeers. \n\n\nAs in the house he stole from us, we have Proof Of Reconveyance, from a Court Ordered Discharge and several CEO 's. \n\n\n\nAmong them, you, as XXXX XXXX XXXX, Bank ofAmerica. \n\n\n\nHard to extend an Olive Branch to a CEO whose Vice Presidents recorded a Deed on behalf of my spouse and yours truly, and then you assume liability Trusteeship of the house ( s ) XXXX swiped. \n\n\n\n\" XXXX XXXX, BofA XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX are joint book-running managers for the offering, and XXXX XXXX XXXX is a co-manager for the offering. '' \" U.S. CodeTitle 18Part IChapter 31 641 18 U.S. Code 641 - Public money, property or records prev |next Whoever embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his use or the use of another, or without authority, sells, conveys or disposes of anyrecord, voucher, money, or thing of value of theUnited Statesor of any department or agency thereof, or any property made or being made under contract for theUnited Statesor any department or agency thereof ; or Whoever receives, conceals, or retains the same with intent to convert it to his use or gain, knowing it to have been embezzled, stolen, purloined or converted Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both ; but if thevalueof such property in the aggregate, combining amounts from all the counts for which the defendant is convicted in a single case, does not exceed the sum of {$1000.00}, he shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. '' In some states, according to \" XXXX XXXX. XXXX, '' the prosecution must show that you intended to aid the thief by purchasing or accepting the stolen property. \n\n\nSome states also differentiate between receiving and possessing stolen property. \n\n\nWell, if we do n't get the keys to the house, or we encounter resistance when we move in, or fail to acquirewritten and literal assistance to repossess the premises, that 's the direct link to the receiving of stolen property. \n\n\n\" XXXX, Ariz. -- ( XXXX XXXX ) -- XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ( XXXX : XXXX ) ( the Company ) announced today that it priced its underwritten public offering of 20,076,891 of its  common shares at a public offering price of {$32.00} per share. \n\nThe Company is offering 9,600,000 of its common shares, according toXXXX, which it says was upsized from the previously announced 8,000,000 common shares, and the selling shareholders are offering 10,476,891 common shares. '' The gross proceeds to the Company, says the article, will be {$310.00} million. \n\n\nThe Company will not receive any proceeds, it says, from the offering of common shares by the selling shareholders. \n\n\n\" The Company and certain of the selling shareholders have granted the underwriters a 30-day option to purchase up to an additional 1,505,465 common shares and 1,506,068 common shares from the Company and such selling shareholders, respectively, at the public offering price. \n\nThe offering is expected to close on XX/XX/XXXX, subject to customary closing conditions. '' By proxy of their lingering partnership in Criminal Foreclosures and other Illegal rackets, You, Bank of America CEO XXXX XXXX XXXX are joined at the hip with all the operatives named in the purchase and sale by XXXX XXXX. \n\n\" What If I Did Not Know That the Property Was Stolen? '' The answer : Bank of America is the Trustee So if my spouse an me, as owners possession of the property, then it 's stolen. \n\n\n\n\" The key factor between receiving and possessing stolen property is the timing of the knowledge that it was stolen. If the person receiving the property knew it was stolen at the time of acquisition, then the person is guilty. If the person discovered the property was stolen after accepting it, but still intends to keep it or use it for a dishonest purpose ( such as selling it to someone else ), then the person is guilty of possessing stolen property. '' Because XXXX knows his act of forgery, fraud and embezzlement have caught up to him. \n\n\n\nXXXX has said he wanted out, and now, out he goes. \n\n\n\" Trump friend XXXX XXXX cashes out of XXXX XXXX XXXX '' And just as your swipe fees caught up to you, your actions and racketeering on real estate issues are catching up too. \n\n\n\n\n\n\" Analysts have noted that the real rationale behind your new debit fee is likely not to cover debit processing costs ( which are minimal and easily covered by the Feds generous rule ) but rather to push more consumers to use credit cards whose swipe fees are still unregulated and far exceed debit swipe fees. But here competition will help provide an important check. \n\n\n\nWhen drafting my legislation I anticipated that banks would push consumers toward credit cards so I included a provision allowing merchants to offer discounts for debit versus credit. This provision will help consumers at the cash register and also will constrain your and other big banks efforts to steer customers toward credit cards with all their attendant tricks and traps. \n\n\n\nYour banks spokespeople and advocates have argued strenuously that I am responsible for your decision to charge this new fee on all but your wealthiest customers. In response to this I will simply point out that my legislation was enacted in XX/XX/XXXX. In XX/XX/XXXX, the XXXX XXXX XXXX reported that your bank was preparing new fees on basic banking services for XX/XX/XXXX and that Bank of America customers who only want a low-volume checking account will likely be asked to pay for it. \n\n\n\n( End is Seen to Free CheckingXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX ). In other words, it is on the record that your bank was preparing new fees just like this one well before swipe fee reform became law. '' https : //www.durbin.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/letter-to-bank-of-america-ceo-XXXX. '' So now, Bank of America, as Trustee, has no defense for not coming up with those keys. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nEssentially, the Bank CEO has been left holding the Bag by XXXX, as he knows that his Trustee Deed ( s ) Upon Sale, used to steal these homes, are all fraudulent. \n\n\n\n\" What are the Possible Consequences of Receiving Stolen Property? \n\n\nReceipt of stolen property is categorized as a \" wobbler '' meaning that the charge can be a felony or misdemeanor. A charge for a receipt of stolen property charge depends on the value of the property at issue. If the property has a high value, the defendant would be charged a felony. If the property value is low, the defendant would be charged as a misdemeanor. If you are found guilty, the court may do any or all of the following : Imprisonment Restitution Fines ( depending on the value of the property ) Probation '' \" Swipe fee reform is merely your latest excuse for jacking up consumer fees, just like the troubled economy was your excuse in XX/XX/XXXX( Banks Boost Customer Fees to Record HighsXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX ), higher costs and consumers increased riskiness was your excuse in XX/XX/XXXX ( Banks find ways to boost fees ; checking accounts latest targetXXXX XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX ), and overdraft restrictions was your excuse in XX/XX/XXXX ( Banks return to charging credit card, checking account feesUSA Today, May 18, 2010 ). \n\n\n\nYour bank has never been shy about seeking more fee revenue to add to the revenue you already receive from maintenance fees, ATM fees, overdraft fees, extended overdrawn balance fees, stop payment fees, interchange fees, research fees and other fees not to mention the interest you receive from lending out consumer deposits. But banks do not need to gouge their customers to operate successfully. \n\n\n\nBanks instead must choose whether their priority will be their customers or their profits and paychecks. You could, for example, choose to give 1.8 million of your customers a reprieve from your new fee by returning the {$9.00} million bonus you received on top of your {$950000.00} salary in XX/XX/XXXX. That choice is yours to make. '' I would agree, and so too, I submit, would my former colleague, XXXX XXXX The following article connected to the above headline is writtenByXXXX XXXX/XX/XX/XXXX, a colleague of mine at XXXX XXXX XXXX : \" XXXX XXXX, a close confidant of President Donald Trumps, haswalked away from the rental housing empire he built following the housing bust, cashing out his ownership stake in a move likely to make him hundreds of millions of dollars. '' The move came late Friday, according to XXXX XXXX, one day afterXXXX published an exposon the company he founded. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nAccording to afilingwith the Securities and Exchange Commission, says the article 's author, XXXX sold all his stock in XXXX XXXX XXXX and resigned his position as co-chairman of its Board of Trustees. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nAbout the time XXXX XXXX sold his holdings, my spouse and me had filed a written complaint against him with the Consumer Financial ProtectionBureau.\n\nWe sent him a Certified package, wherein he found a  copy of Deed ( s ) of Reconveyance from Bank of America ( XX/XX/XXXX ), and a \" Release of Lien \" Letter ( XX/XX/XXXX ) from XXXX XXXX, XXXX, a \" Wholly-Owned '' subsidiary of Bank of America. \n\n\n\n\n\n\" XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. \n\n\nLien Release Department XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. \nXXXX : AZXXXX XXXX, AZ XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX, CA XXXX RE : Substitution of Trustee and Full Reconveyance Property Address XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, CA XXXX Dear Homeowner, Please be informed that when a mortgage or deed of trust is paid in full, the public records must be cleared using a legal document called a lien release or reconveyance. A lien release is a document which \" releases '' a lien on property included in public records. The lien release serves as notification that the borrower no longer owes that specific debt secured by an interest in the property. \n\nIn the states of California, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Washington, the Reconveyance is combined or accompanied by a Substitution of Trustee wherein the lender or current holder/beneficiary substitutes the original Trustee with a new trustee. \n\nXXXX XXXX, XXXX, is substituted in the above referenced states to replace the original trustee for the very purpose of releasing a lien on the property. The document is accurate and properly recorded based onthe state statutory guidelines and it removes th encumbrance from your property. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bank of America, N.A., and is  responsible for preparing, executing, notarizing and sending real property lien releases on behalf of Bank of America. \n\nPaid-in-full loans are referred to XXXX XXXX, XXXX, for lien release processing, All lien releases or reconveyances are recorded with the Country Recorder 's office where the original Deed of Trust or Mortgage was recorded. Please retain for your records the lien release or reconveyance you received as that is proof that your loan is paid in full and released from public records. '' Thank you for your business XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. \nLien Release Department '' In addition, we mailed within the packet, copies of Reconveyances from : b ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. \n\n\n\nc ) XXXX XXXX XXXX ( both now owned by XXXX XXXX XXXX ) d ) XXXX XXXX, XXXX. ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) e ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and the Chapter XXXX Banruptcy Case XXXX, via a Purchase and Sale Agreement ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) Contracted using the signatures of XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX, without our knowledge or permission. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nThrough the relay racket, possession of our home was left to the clutches of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, which then colluded with XXXX XXXX XXXX whose Company then was called \" XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ), to steal our home with a forged Trustee Deed. \n\n\n\n\n\nAccording to XXXX the phenomenon XXXX started where tens of thousands of single-family homes are bundled into giant mortgage-backed securities, creating new incentives designed, to skimp on maintenance and maximize rents, says the author, But the phenomenon XXXX started will outlive his ownership. \n\n\n\n\n\n\" XXXX, who often says he likes to befriend the bewildered, has made a career out of profiting off other peoples pain. He began buying houses in XXXX, telling an audience in XXXX that the mass purchases of homes previously foreclosed on was the greatest thing Ive ever done. \n\n\n\n\" Current tenants, however, say the company piles on onerous fees and forces them to live with chronic leaks, mold, mites and even snake infestations. '' While in action with his stolen goods, XXXX XXXX XXXX was making deals with the XXXX, so to speak, and committing acts of treachery against \" tenants '', who probably were the same homeowners from whom the properties were stolen, and converted to Rentals. '' In one county in the XXXX area, says XXXX, the company filed eviction notices against one-third of its tenants, according to a report by the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. \n\n\n\n\n\nWere just little people in his world, XXXX XXXX, XXXX, said of XXXX. \n\n\n\nTwo weeks after her family moved into a XXXX XXXX home in suburban XXXX, she said a ceiling fan fell on her bed. \n\n\n\nXXXX first signaled his intention to sell in afilingwith the SECon Wednesday, says the article, a week after XXXX contacted the company for comment andfive days after XXXX talked to XXXX by phone, telling him directly that we planned to publish an investigation into poor conditions and mass evictions by XXXX. '' And I and others like me will continue pressing for that investigation, among others, as well as writing to the courts that have Bank of America and the others under foot. \n\n\n\n\n\nNot only will we pressure them into turning on their heretofore partners, but throwing them under the bus to save their own skins. \n\n\n\n\n\nIn this upcoming example, an appeals court made a clear distinction between two separate versions of purchase and sale. \n\n\n\" XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 3, California. \nXXXX XXXX, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. et al., Defendants and Responde XXXX Decided : XXXX XXXX XXXX ORDER MODIFYING OPINION ; NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT. \n\nOn the court 's own motion, we modify the opinion by deleting the sentence on page 10, stating, Additionally, the debtor has the right to postpone the foreclosure sale for one day to pay off the outstanding debt. ( XXXX v. XXXX XXXX XXXX ( 1985 ) 165 Cal.App.3d 312, 317320. ) Whatever the Court 's opinion, the distinction they make is clear and decisive, related to mortgages and transfer of title for a sale. \n\n\n\n\n\n\" As we noted at the outset of this opinion, the Legislature has eliminated most of the legal and economic distinctions between a mortgage containing a power of sale and a deed of trust. ( XXXX, supra, 270 Cal.App.2d at p. 553 [ holding same rules are generally applied to mortgages and deeds of trust because there is little practical difference between the two instruments ]. ) However, some distinctions between the two security devices endure. \n\n\n\nProbably the most significant distinction is the execution of a mortgage involves only two parties ( i.e., he mortgagor and mortgagee ) ; whereas the execution of a deed of trust necessarily involves three parties ( i.e., the trustor-debtor, beneficiary-creditor, and trustee ) because title to the real property and the power of sale are conveyed to the third party trustee, who holds the interest for the benefit of the beneficiary-creditor. ( See XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX at p. 1510. ) '' In the case of a Title already transferred, the matter of a Deed of Trust is moot, and any purchase and sale agreement therefore is illegal. \n\n\n\n\n\nAnd if I am pushed to it, or someone challenges my demand for the keys, I will prove to them that the law ( s ) regarding refinancing, Purchase and Sale Contracts have been abused, butchered, broken. \n\n\n\n\n\nMy spouse and I have obtained transfer of the Deed of Trust to a Title all the way back to XX/XX/XXXX, in the U.S. Chapter XXXXBankrupty court ( XXXX ). \n\n\n\nThe court Discharged, our Debt and issued an order directing that the Title be transferred to my spouse and me, based on the \" Final Decree '' submitted byXXXX XXXX as U.S. Chapter XXXX Trustee in the above-referenced case. \n\n\n\n\n\" The Final Decree After the submission of a reorganization plan, the bankruptcy court conducts a hearing for confirmation. In certain cases, there may be some alteration or modification due to the interference of the interested parties. If there is no alteration or modification in the reorganization plan, the bankruptcy court initiates steps for the affirmation of the plan. \n\n\n\nAfter completion of all post-confirmation proceedings of the plan, the bankruptcy court sets time limits for filing a final report and motion for a final decree. \n\n\n\nThe Bankruptcy Code requires the court to close a bankruptcy case immediately after full administration of the real property and the discharge of the US Trustee. In short, the entry of a final decree is meant to close a bankruptcy case. '' An Order for a Deed of Reconveyance came with the Discharge. \n\n\n\nThe Order was fulfilled by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, which recorded a Deed of Reconveynance on that same date : XX/XX/XXXX.\n\nIn this upcoming example, again, the appeals court made a clear distinction between two separate versions of purchase and sale. \n\n\n\n\" As the XXXX court explained, section 2932.5 's purpose is not to ensure that borrowers can identify who is holding their loans. Section 2932.5 requires the recorded assignment of a mortgage so that a prospective purchaser knows that the mortgagee has the authority to exercise the power of sale. \n\n\n\nThis is not necessary when a deed of trust is involved, as the trustee conducts the sale and transfers title. [ Citation. ] It is the trustee 's holding and transferring of title that underlies the application of different recording requirements than those required of mortgagees under section 2932.5 [ T ] he literal application of section 2932.5 to  deeds of trust would effectively require the power of sale to be transferred to the lender, contrary to the terms of the trust deed and of section 2934a which provides detailed requirements for the transfer of the power of sale to another trustee. ( XXXX, supra, 205 Cal.App.4th at p. 336, fn. omitted. ) We agree with the XXXX court that the transferee of a promissory note secured by a deed of trust is not a mortgagee, or other encumbrancer to whom a power of sale is given within the meaning of section 2932.5, and such a transferee need not have a duly acknowledged and recorded interest in the promissory note before exercising the power of sale. \n\n\n\n( XXXX, supra, 205 Cal.App.4th at p. 333. ) '' And if pressed to do so, I gladly will embarrass these detractors by proving their treachery, Evasion of Taxes, Embezzlement and Seizure of Assets and of Property without authority or legal standing. \n\n\n\n\" U.S. CodeTitle 12Chapter 38A 3763 12 U.S. Code 3763 - Transfer of title and possession prev|next ( a ) Delivery of deeds The foreclosure commissioner shall, upon delivery of a deed or deeds to the purchaser or purchasers ( which shall be without warranty or covenants to the purchaser or purchasers ) obtain the balance of the purchase price in accordance with the terms of sale provided in the notice ofdefaultand foreclosure sale. \n\n\nNotwithstanding anyStatelaw to the contrary, delivery of a deed by the foreclosure commissioner shall be a conveyance of the property, and constitute passage of title to the mortgaged property, and no judicial proceedings shall be required ancillary or supplementary to the procedures provided in this chapter to assure the validity of the conveyance or confirmation of such conveyance. \n\n\n( b ) Right of possession A purchaser at a foreclosure sale held pursuant to this chapter shall be entitled to possession upon passage of title under subsection ( a ) to the mortgagedproperty, subject to any interest or interests not barred undersection 3765 of this title. \n\nAny person remaining in possession of the mortgaged property after thepassageof title shall be deemed a tenant at sufferance subject to eviction under Penalty of Perjury.","date_sent_to_company":"2017-12-20T08:42:57.000Z","issue":"Closing on a mortgage","sub_product":"Conventional home mortgage","zip_code":"94538","tags":"Older American, Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"2759570","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2017-12-20T03:31:38.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This complaint and web article is an update from XX/XX/<em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em>  <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> XXXXXXXX <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> To <em>XXXX</em>. <em>XXXX</em> : Stop Playing Games. Turn over the keys! \nAs Standing Trustee, You ALONE, are Responsible for all Matters Related to Our Assets & Property. To Not Comply is in Defiance of Federal & State Laws! \n\nTO : <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em>, Chief Executive Officer <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em>. \n\n<em>XXXX</em>, NC <em>XXXX</em> <em>WARNING</em>! \n\n\n\n\n\nTAKE HEED Who is Liable?"]},"sort":[3.2849145,"2759570"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":15,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":15}]}},"product":{"doc_count":15,"product":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Checking or savings account","doc_count":4,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Checking account","doc_count":4}]}},{"key":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":3,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":3}]}},{"key":"Credit card","doc_count":2,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":2,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","doc_count":2,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Domestic (US) money transfer","doc_count":1},{"key":"Virtual currency","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Credit card or prepaid card","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Store credit card","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Mortgage","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Conventional home mortgage","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"issue":{"doc_count":15,"issue":{"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":"Problem using a debit or ATM card","doc_count":3},{"key":"Problem making or receiving payments","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Incorrect information on your report","doc_count":3,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Account status incorrect","doc_count":2},{"key":"Information belongs to someone else","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Card was charged for something you did not purchase with the card","doc_count":1},{"key":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Closing on a mortgage","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Fraud or scam","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Improper use of your report","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Reporting company used your report improperly","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Other transaction problem","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Investigation took more than 30 days","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Trouble using your card","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Can't use card to make purchases","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"timely":{"doc_count":15,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":15}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":15,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":11},{"key":"Closed with non-monetary relief","doc_count":3},{"key":"Closed with monetary relief","doc_count":1}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":15,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":15}]}},"company":{"doc_count":15,"company":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","doc_count":3},{"key":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","doc_count":2},{"key":"Early Warning Services, LLC","doc_count":2},{"key":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","doc_count":2},{"key":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"CITIBANK, N.A.","doc_count":1},{"key":"CITIZENS FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL","doc_count":1},{"key":"U.S. BANCORP","doc_count":1}]}},"state":{"doc_count":15,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"FL","doc_count":4},{"key":"CA","doc_count":3},{"key":"CT","doc_count":2},{"key":"NY","doc_count":2},{"key":"MD","doc_count":1},{"key":"ND","doc_count":1},{"key":"NM","doc_count":1},{"key":"VA","doc_count":1}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":15,"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":8}]}},"tags":{"doc_count":15,"tags":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Older American","doc_count":4},{"key":"Older American, Servicemember","doc_count":3}]}}},"_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":{}}}