{"took":274,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":19,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"20110238","_score":25.605194,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"CFPB Complaint Draft Failure to Explain Fraud Investigation Process Subject : Wells Fargo failed to explain what their fraud investigation entails, what evidence is reviewed, or what the customer should expect. \n\nDetails : At no point during my fraud dispute did Wells Fargo explain what their fraud investigation process includes or what evidence they typically review. I was not informed of : what steps a fraud investigation involves what evidence Wells Fargo normally examines what information I was expected to provide what timelines apply what rights I had during the investigation what Wells Fargos obligations were Instead, I was left to figure out the entire process on my own. Representatives provided scripted statements, inconsistent information, and no meaningful guidance. I repeatedly asked what evidence would be reviewed, whether the ATM deposit would be examined, and whether the receiving account would be investigated. I was never given clear answers. \n\nThis lack of explanation directly contributed to Wells Fargos inaccurate determinations. For example, the bank never reviewed the ATM deposit I made on XX/XX/XXXX, never investigated the Wells Fargoopened account that received the stolen funds, and never fulfilled the judgesigned warrant issued to them. Had Wells Fargo explained their process, I would have known immediately that these steps were being skipped. \n\nImpact : The failure to explain the investigation process caused confusion, delays, and prevented me from understanding what information Wells Fargo needed. It also prevented me from identifying early on that key evidence was not being reviewed. This omission contributed to repeated inaccurate determinations and ongoing harm.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-03-09T22:50:48.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"82009","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"20110238","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2026-03-09T22:46:49.000Z","state":"WY","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Deposits and withdrawals"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I was not informed of : <em>what</em> steps a fraud <em>investigation</em> involves <em>what</em> evidence <em>Wells</em> Fargo normally examines <em>what</em> information I was expected to provide <em>what</em> <em>timelines</em> <em>apply</em> <em>what</em> <em>rights</em> I had <em>during</em> the <em>investigation</em> <em>what</em> <em>Wells</em> Fargos obligations were Instead, I was left to figure out the entire process on my own. Representatives provided scripted statements, inconsistent information, and no meaningful guidance."],"company":["<em>WELLS</em> FARGO & COMPANY"]},"sort":[25.605194,"20110238"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"15931262","_score":12.960526,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"I believe CMG Mortgage is retaliating against me for exercising my rights under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act ( 50 U.S.C. 39014043  ) and the California Military Families Financial Relief Act ( Cal. Mil. & Vet. Code 800811 ), as well as my VA loan rights. \n\nTimeline of What I Did and CMGs Responses XXXX XXXX XXXX : Submitted initial XXXX notice and military orders to XXXX via secure message. \n\nXXXX  XXXX XXXX : XXXX confirmed receipt of my SCRA eligibility documents ; no substantive response regarding deferment. \n\nXX/XX/year> : Submitted formal written request for a 180-day mortgage deferment under California law , requesting it be effective XX/XX/year>. \n\nXX/XX/year> : CMG requested a letter from my commanding officer acknowledging that the information would be relied upon by the creditor. This request is not required under California law ; XXXX XXXX XXXX  alone are sufficient. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX : I repeatedly informed CMG of my XXXX XXXX, my inability to provide wet signatures physically, and requested that electronic submission of signed documents be accepted. CMG continued to deny acceptance, citing internal policy. \n\nXX/XX/year> : CMG stated they would treat my CFPB complaint as an exception and accept it as my written request. The deferment for XX/XX/year> was only granted after I filed the formal CFPB complaint, showing clear retaliatory behavior. \n\nXX/XX/year> : I submitted an additional {$3000.00} payment designated as principal only using my military allowances while taking advantage of the deferment. \n\nXX/XX/year> : Account logs show Misapplication Reversal Misapplied Funds- {$4700.00}, indicating my payment was mishandled and reversed instead of being applied to principal. \n\nOngoing : CMG portal blocks me from making further additional principal-only payments, displaying : We are unable to process the payment amount that you submitted at this time. Please call XXXX for assistance. \n\nOngoing : Portal falsely shows my XX/XX/XXXX payment as past due, misrepresenting me as delinquent and creating barriers to payments during deferment. \n\n\n\nWhy I Believe This Is Retaliation CMG is taking advantage of my military deferment and acting in direct retaliation for my complaints by : Blocking me from making principal-only payments that I am legally entitled to make. \n\nMisapplying and reversing my payments. \n\nFalsely reporting my account as delinquent despite a valid deferment. \n\nCreating unlawful delays by demanding additional documentation not required by statute. \n\nResponding only after I filed a formal CFPB complaint, demonstrating a pattern of retaliatory behavior. \n\n\n\nViolations of Law Cal. Mil. & Vet. Code 800 ( e ) Failure to act on my valid written deferment request within 30 calendar days. \n\n50 U.S.C. 39014043 ( SCRA ) Servicemember protections, including protection from penalties and proper treatment of payments. \n\nCMGs refusal to accept electronic submission, misapplication of principal-only payments, and blocking of additional payments violate statutory obligations under SCRA, California law , and VA loan servicing requirements. \n\n\n\nRequested Action Recognize my XX/XX/year> deferment request as valid and effective XX/XX/year>. \n\nApply my XX/XX/year> {$3000.00} payment as principal only. \n\nRemove false past due status and ensure no late fees, penalties, or negative credit reporting. \n\nRestore my ability to make principal-only payments during deferment. \n\nInvestigate CMG for retaliatory practices and compel compliance with SCRA, California Military Families Financial Relief Act, and VA loan servicing requirements.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-09-14T13:13:11.000Z","issue":"Trouble during payment process","sub_product":"VA mortgage","zip_code":"92107","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"15931262","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CMG Financial Services, Inc.","date_received":"2025-09-14T13:08:40.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Payment process"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I believe CMG Mortgage is retaliating against me for exercising my <em>rights</em> under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act ( 50 U.S.C. 39014043  ) and the California Military Families Financial Relief Act ( Cal. Mil. & Vet. Code 800811 ), as <em>well</em> as my VA loan <em>rights</em>. \n\n<em>Timeline</em> of <em>What</em> I Did and CMGs Responses XXXX XXXX XXXX : Submitted initial XXXX notice and military orders to XXXX via secure message."],"issue":["Trouble <em>during</em> payment process"]},"sort":[12.960526,"15931262"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3549924","_score":7.858959,"_source":{"product":"Credit card or prepaid card","complaint_what_happened":"The following letter was written and sent on or behalf by our attorney after our personal letters and phone calls with Citibank received no response - at all - from Citibank. \n\nLEGAL MATTER TO BE DIRECTED TO CITIBANK LEGAL DEPARTMENT AND ITS GENERAL COUNSEL To the General Counsel of Citibank , N.A . : I have been retained by XXXX and XXXX XXXX, holders of Citibank credit cards, to file legal action against Citibank as a result of its failure now for more than three months to comply with its legal obligations regarding the fraudulent use of two of the XXXX credit cards despite the fact that they promptly notified the Bank of such fraud and fully cooperated with the Banks investigation of it. Nonetheless, the Bank has wrongfully refused to credit the XXXX for the fraudulent charges, as a result of which they have been forced to seek legal representation. \n\nAlthough they have brought all of the relevant underlying facts to the Banks attention on numerous occasion, I will do so once more so that there can be no doubt of the Banks unjustified recalcitrance in resolving the XXXX claims and its liability to them to credit all of the fraudulent charges made against their accounts. \n\nMore particularly : CREDIT CARD ENDING IN XXXX : On XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, the XXXX  Citbank credit card number ending in XXXX was used fraudulently by someone who somehow obtained sufficient information regarding their card to make forty-three ( 43 ) separate individual fraudulent charges to XXXX without the knowledge or consent of the XXXX  and without possession of their card on which these charges were made. The XXXX  discovered these fraudulent charges on XX/XX/XXXX, and immediately notified the Bank of them, confirming that they had been fraudulently made. The Bank advised the XXXX  that it would promptly open an investigation and credit their account as to ALL of these fraudulent charges, assuring them that, under federal law and Citibank governances, they were not liable for them and that the Bank would absolutely refund the charges and any applicable interest. \n\nTo date, three and half months later, Citibank still has not done so, but has reversed only five of the 43 fraudulent charges. During this time the Bank has made repeated unreasonable demands upon the XXXX in more than two dozen emails, claiming that, if the XXXX did not IMMEDIATELY respond to the Banks latest inquiries ( to which the XXXX  had already responded repeatedly ), it would close its file without reimbursement of the charges. Notwithstanding the unreasonableness of the Banks demands, the XXXX responded to them all, and, after each, was advised by the Banks representatives that all of the 43 fraudulent charges would be credited in their full amount. Now, three full billing cycles later, the XXXX  are still waiting for such credit.\n\nOn one of these calls with the Bank, the Banks representative advised the XXXX  that each of the 43 fraudulent charges ( all made in the same 24-hour period and all made to the same entity XXXX ) had to be reviewed individually, which was causing the delay, but certainly the review would be completed no later than XX/XX/XXXX. Despite the illegitimacy of the Banks professed excuse for delay, given that the same information applies to all 43 of the charges the Bank has still not credited the XXXX against these charges even after the expiration of its own unreasonable timeline. \nThe total fraudulent charges made on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX under the card ending in XXXX were {$8000.00}, against which, to date, the Bank has credited only {$580.00}. If, as the Bank has acknowledged, the facts of its investigation support issuance of a credit for this sum ( not that it could have found otherwise ), how do these exact same facts not justify issuance of the remainder of the credit? \nCREDIT CARD ENDING IN XXXX : Because of the fraud on their credit card ending in XXXX, the XXXX  replaced that card with one ending in XXXX. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, no long after receiving their new card, it was stolen from XXXX XXXX purse while the XXXX  were visiting XXXX. Again, they immediately contacted Citibank to advise it of the theft, and also filed a complaint with the XXXX Police Department ( which report has already been turned over to the Bank several times ). This time, obviously, the thieves did have possession of the stolen card, and, despite the XXXX quick action in reporting the theft and cancelling the card, the thieves were able to make three ( 3 ) purchases at XXXX XXXX ( # XXXX ) and XXXX XXXX ( # XXXX ) totaling {$3100.00}. \n\nDespite the XXXX  prompt and complete compliance with all of their obligations regarding the reporting of this theft, and supplying all information available to them, the Bank has not, again for more than three months, credited them against these fraudulent charges. Even more outrageously, the Bank advised the XXXX  on XX/XX/XXXX, that it was closing its investigating with a determination that {$2000.00} of these charges were not fraudulently incurred. On what basis did the Bank reach this conclusion? On the professed basis, according to their correspondence, that the XXXX supposedly advised the Bank that the credit card had remained in their possession, so that those charges for which the credit card was presented by the thieves had to be authorized!! Trying to give the Bank the benefit of the doubt regarding its totally fallacious reasoning, it appears that the Bank confused the first fraudulent charges ( regarding card XXXX ), for which the card never left the XXXX possession, with the second fraudulent charges ( regarding card XXXX ), for which the card was stolen and clearly in the thieves possession. The Bank needs to straighten out these two claims, which it apparently can not keep separated notwithstanding requiring the XXXX   again to respond to literally dozens of emails demanding information from them that they have already repeatedly provided. \n\nIs this how Citibank generally treats its cardholders? It will be interesting to discover that in litigation, should that become necessary, as, to date, it appears that it will be lest the Bank decide to honor its obligations to the XXXX  without further delay. If this is indeed how the Bank generally treats its cardholders in an effort to gain an improper financial benefit from them, the Bank may well find itself liable for punitive damages and for a class action suit. \n\nMy instructions from the XXXX  are to begin drafting a complaint against the Bank, and to file it when ready without further notice to the Bank. It will take me a week to 10 days to do so. This window will represent the Banks final chance to avoid litigation by reversing all of these fraudulent charges against the XXXX credit cards. Absent notice to me that it has done so before the complaint is filed, the XXXX  will let the trier of fact provide its verdict, and doubt that any trier of fact will find any sympathy with the Banks unjustified, indeed outrageous, delaying tactics.\n\nOne final irony : I personally was the victim last week of credit card fraud in the amount of several thousand dollars. I reported it immediately and my bank handled the entire matter within two hours. That is how banks are supposed to treat their cardholders. It is up to Citibank to choose whether it wishes to learn that lesson the easy way or the hard way. \n\nNothing in this letter is meant to waive, nor shall or may be construed as waiving, any rights held by the XXXX, all of which are expressly reserved. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX Attorney for XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2020-03-01T15:59:02.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"91364","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3549924","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CITIBANK, N.A.","date_received":"2020-03-01T15:33:57.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Despite the illegitimacy of the Banks professed excuse for delay, given that the same information <em>applies</em> to all 43 of the charges the Bank has still not credited the XXXX against these charges even after the expiration of its own unreasonable <em>timeline</em>. \nThe total fraudulent charges made on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX under the card ending in XXXX were {$8000.00}, against which, to date, the Bank has credited only {$580.00}."]},"sort":[7.858959,"3549924"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7341019","_score":7.515555,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"My letter to the board of WSFS and their retained counsel:\n\nRepresentatives at XXXX, XXXX, XXXX  and WSFS representatives:\n\nThank you for taking the time to read the information enclosed below regarding the ongoing issues and pending legal action against WSFS.\n\nMost of you are aware of the previous correspondence sent by myself to the board regarding issues stemming from allegations of discrimination in conjunction with several other improprieties.  That correspondence was met with initial concern from your Chief Legal Officer who guaranteed an investigation into the matter.\n\nXXXX XXXX then reviewed the matter, decided to cancel the relationship, and call in a line of credit to be immediately satisfied in full of $XXXX  which was paid entirely.  In the following weeks, XXXX XXXX, a collection specialist, was given the account, and instructed me I could only make payment by paper check.  Three attempts have been made to satisfy loan payments by check, two of three not cashed, all check numbers available if needed.  I find it auspicious that I still was unable to make payment electronically.  As of today, payment will be dropped off, in person, at your corporate office, with a video made, so as to make sure there is no confusion.\n\nAs a result of the missed payments, which I would like to point out that in 11 years, the only missed payments ever recorded was during this situation.  XXXX XXXX, sent a pdf of a letter accelerating all loans to be satisfied in 15 days for over $XXXX XXXX.  It was sent to XXXX which was an email created for the sole purpose of emailing attorneys regarding my case and never furnished to WSFS or XXXX XXXX.\n\nIts imperative that this board, and anyone reading this, comprehends what is taking place in the present, and what will take place in the future.  On XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX, in response to the actions that took place by WSFS, and before I addressed the board on XXXX, I sent a detailed outline to a reporter from the XXXX XXXX XXXX  that I have cultivated an association with over the years.\n\nThe next part is important, so pay attention.  In that outline, I stated the actions that would take place, the likely response by the bank, and the likely outcome of the situation.  The individual has been receiving the communications and the videos I have shared, the ones I will share in this letter, and he has the ones that I still have yet to release.  This person has been watching the situation unfold with the strong anticipation.\n\nXXXX XXXX sent the acceleration demand to an email that was only structured for the purpose of emailing attorneys, an email that he and WSFS were never furnished.  I instructed the board of my intention of emailing attorneys, I just didnt say when.  Time passing and my prevailing patience hasnt changed the course of action.  The first push of connections was 274 attorneys.  Some of which may or may not have been emailed to known attorneys that have a conflict of interest, where it may or may not have been assumed it would reach your counsel in one way or another, which it did as he sent it to the email provided only to those attorneys.\n\nThe email sent to these attorneys, as Im sure youre aware, is a quick outline of the case, with attached videos.  The first video is the one sent in my original letter to the board, the second is a video of the 211 emails I sent during my time where there was alleged discrimination, my claims of discrimination outlined in time stamped emails, and my feelings surrounding those inflammatory acts.  This video shows XXXX XXXX did not do a thorough investigation, did not review emails on the servers, and clearly didnt review the ones from prior to XXXX.  I anticipated this, along with the actions that would be taken by the bank, and the recommendations of their counsel.\n\nThe SEC was given the information under submission number XXXX and the State of Delaware Investor Protection Unit also was furnished the information you have seen and still have yet to see.\n\nThe Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 is a serious matter, along with the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, and breach of the obligation to provide correct information is considered a serious matter.  There is a procedural duty to provide correct information.  Whether your investors believe that they were injured will be entirely up to them, and as I stated before, I have never traded the stock of WSFS, nor will I.\n\nI believe theres a substantial likelihood that reasonable investors would consider this disclosure, especially during that time and space in this country, significant not only for the stock, but also in regards to a merger.  Most investors will rely on the integrity of the price set by the market, and this is only achieved with accurate information.  Releasing information so incomplete as to mislead investors, employees, and the public is negligent and reckless.  Employees have the right, just like investors, to have information available to them to know if the culture of the workplace matches their moral compass.  A court, or person, can never set the bar too low for a standard of materiality, and the information I have provided and accusations I have made would be considered information that can alter the total mix of information made available.\n\nAntitrust laws have been violated, and the FTC always conducts comprehensive merger reviews and their opinion surrounding a multi year, documented claim of discrimination over hundreds of emails, text messages, voice conversations, supersedes whether this board, or its counsel, believes that any wrongdoing has committed.  In total, there were over 34 laws and regulations broken.  Of the attorneys that were contacted some were investor class action attorneys.  I have been sent engagement letters by several notable attorneys and have yet to decide who I will move forward with.\n\nWSFS will be forced to provide basic-level information and will need to be forthcoming.  While XXXX XXXX  thought it to be acceptable to overlook such a pressing matter and give it the proper due diligence, she left your company wide open for lawsuits for things beyond the scope of what she may have perceived she was dealing with.\n\nThe Department of Justice and its actions have also been calculated into my series of events, along with inquiries coming from both national and state agencies.  While your counsel may provide you comfort in what his defenses can and would be, then I would give notion that you still arent understanding the gravity of the situation you are in.  Now that I have validated credibility in my claims through the many attorneys that have wished to engage the matter, now is the time for the press to be made aware of the claims, the videos, and the like, that has been shared so far.\n\nIm not going to review in this email all the precedence surrounding this states legislature, as that is the job of your counsel where he will bill you accordingly for said work. The main objective of counsel appears to have been from defending you against me, but they failed in defending you from yourself. Your sole focus was on intimidation tactics surrounding my accounts and my treatment, but left you exposed in areas surrounding my case and others.  Dont let them tell you otherwise, and if they do, or even posture towards more defense, then I would suggest you find new counsel.  Their job is to make you aware of your liabilities in all forms, not be narrow minded and leave you exposed, which they did.\n\nYour merger with XXXX XXXX correlates timelines of my XXXX complaints, and your merger with XXXX XXXX  and XXXX XXXX XXXX (XXXX  XXXX) timelines also provide motives around suppressing discrimination claims despite hundreds of emails, videos, and verbal complaints.  The holdings of these companies, their investments, and the claims presented leaves liability in ways that only the highest level of financial analyst can explain to you. Your business combination disclosures have been reviewed in their entirety, along with all matters pertaining to your XXXX activity.  Manipulating information surrounding claims of discrimination, disregarding federal regulation surrounding it, and your lack of disclosures to investors provides enough burden of proof to bring action.\n\nI was a gentleman the first communication and in how these matters have been handled.  I gave the bank sufficient time to try and remedy the situation on their own, and then decided to use an attorney who I trust and attempted to mediate a remedy despite it not being their field of expertise. Did I anticipate that XXXX XXXX would know XXXX XXXX field of expertise, think it to be leverage, and his office would take their course of action?  Maybemaybe not.  Ill leave that to you to decide.\n\nI appreciate everything XXXX  did in helping in the situation, she is a true friend and good person.  When XXXX XXXX approached her and attempted to convince her to offer me to sign away my legal rights in order to not accelerate loans payments, she immediately indicated that she understood something was wrong and that it wasnt her area of expertise and strongly advised me to find a bank law specialist and to pursue action.  She provided recommendations, which was appreciated, but I had anticipated this action, not quite in this manner, and had already taken precautions.\n\nAs XXXX XXXX, his firm, and this bank are so keen on accelerated deadlines then I propose my own.  Your bullying tactics and requiring payment in 15 days surrounding $XXXX XXXX in loans was received, and in return I will extend the olive branch for your second go round, much like the first, however, this is the last, as the stakes are significantly higher now, and the equilibrium moment of decision making is actually upon this board and the company.\n\nI speak for myself, as Ive always maintained, and will provide the board a settlement offer.  All I have ever wanted is to be treated like all other customers.  My original offer still stands, WSFS can terminate XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX, pay no money, admit no wrong doing, and I will continue to pay loans as specified, as I have always done, never missing a payment for 11 years.\n\nThe second option is an immediate resolution and settlement of $XXXX XXXX.  The balance to be paid after satisfying all outstanding loans.  That will result in immediate termination of all communication with prospective attorneys, waive my rights to a class action lawsuit and any information leading to class action, and I will no longer comply with any government agencies that I am presently working with in relation to this matter.  All complaints will be rescinded, and WSFS and all entities I control and own will never have dealings again.\n\nIf this settlement is rejected, then I will be moving forward with a $XXXX XXXX lawsuit, provide full cooperation to any government entities necessary, and will begin my second wave of emails to attorneys seeking counsel, and any news outlets that can help put me in touch with the appropriate counsel.\n\nI warned this board against using probability modeling in handling this case. Attached is the blanket email sent to attorneys that I am seeking counsel from.  My researchers have every licensed attorney in the state of Delaware and will continue looking out to more firms, in surrounding states, to at the least educate them on a potential class action lawsuit, but also for my own suit.\n\nThe deadline put in place for my loan acceleration applies for your settlement offer.  If you choose to decline the offer, then I respect that decision, and I believe this will be a strong legal battle that will be a good case overall.\n\nIt would be unfair for me to not make you aware that I have reached out to the Attorney General for the XXXX XXXX, of which I belong, based in Oklahoma, and have requested the assistance of the Office of the Attorney General, and all pro bono legal assistance the tribe can offer in the state of Delaware and through other XXXX  around the nation who would be interested in assisting.\n\nAfter this meeting, no settlement offers will be accepted, offered, or countered.  I will not allow this lending institution to take the legal stance of wanting to wait, see, and then offer a deal.  My culture and disposition in life wont allow it.  Never was about money, I stated that from the beginning.  If you feel your bank didnt violate any laws, then the incompetence of your employees will be on full display for the world to see when questioned in the matter.\n\nWhether you believe you did anything wrong or not is not for you to decide.  This bank took a perfect customer, who grew profits every year, revenues every year, never missed a payment, has flawless credit, great financial stability, and the bank chose to redline him into lower loan packages, keep him suppressed in small business far past revenues pushed past $XXXX XXXX annually, and discriminated against him while he made formal complaints for years just to help branch managers get better bonus structures.  Then when vocalizing these complaints to the board, his credit lines were called in, all banking terminated, and then standard loan packages called in.\n\nXXXX XXXX requested the statements for the closed account of #XXXX  from XXXX, and has still not furnished them along with the check viewer images that the CPA needs, much as  he didnt furnish them the two months I asked for them.  The blatant disrespect and mistreatment has been on full display, and when it goes in front of the world, we will let them decide for themselves.  I hope hes not going to say its not true, like everything else, when my attorney requested them in addition.\n\nI look forward to your response, however, I have already anticipated it, and like a great play, we will enter the third and final act.  However, there are twists in this one that you just dont suspect.  You played your hand, a little early I might add, and now its my turn, and like a patient investor, I will see the rewards of my patience.\n\nAttached:  Letter to Attorneys.\n\nHi XXXX, this is XXXX XXXX, Delaware's largest XXXX XXXX, and Delaware's most successful entrepreneur under 40. For three years, I made time stamped email and text complaints surrounding my treatment as a WSFS customer and the discriminatory nature the bank was drifting in. I have attached the XXXX  video link for the XXXX  meeting between myself and two WSFS including XXXX XXXX. The second XXXX  link reviews the details of the emails exchanged surrounding my claims to several key executives and their blatant attempt to quiet me. There are 211 separate email events that are all documented and verified. These are the emails on the server since XXXX. Prior to XXXX  there are more emails that are even worse that I can make sure to include after engagements have taken place. As a high net worth individual, money is not, and has not been my motivator. People who encounter me understand immediately that I am a person of discipline and principle. I give people in life every opportunity to help themselves before I choose any action and move forward. When I do move forward it's with full force. I cautioned the bank of using probability modeling surrounding my treatment and their handling of the information they possessed. My personal belief is that most who watch the video are immediately aware clearly of egregious acts that were committed by bad faith actors who infiltrated this once great bank's executive suite and treated it much like the executives at XXXX XXXX. The actions of the bank to pursue the laws of probability and \"breakage\" and \"slippage\" means that money is something they value most, more than a person's rights, leading me to the notion that damages should be pursued, and not a small amount, but rather a ground breaking amount. Now that we've determined monetary gain wasn't my main motivator then let's talk about why I am doing this. I have single handedly raised my son, XXXX XXXX, to be XXXX XXXX XXXX  in history to receive D1 and ivy league scholarships, and he committed to being the youngest student in XXXX XXXX History at the age of XXXX. Attached is his video of scholarship offers so you know this to be true, along with my XXXX  profile so you can verify me as well. I am building XXXX XXXX XXXX, working alongside the State of Maryland and the state of Delaware, all in addition to my businesses. I would be doing my son a grave disservice by allowing him to see a company treat us in this way and not be held accountable. With that said, I will pay a PREMIUM to the standard attorney compensation awarded for damages. Review the tapes, let me know your thoughts, and let's move forward immediately.The allegations of my discrimination came at a time that WSFS was also completing a merger and not a single person can explain why matters surrounding claims of discrimination never went beyond the branch the one person who oversees it. I believe that shareholders deserve to know exactly what was happening at this bank during that period and their investors have the right to question executive management and their motives surrounding this. There's a lot at play here, and their pressure has been mounting as I have still repeatedly increased my pressure seeking answers surrounding their behavior. Now it's time to bring in a professional who does this for a living and while I am very successful in my areas of life, it's best to adopt a model of deferring to others in a situation such as this one.I am very eager to get to work, so let's begin with a phone call as early as tomorrow. My assistant found your information, so I figured I'd reach out directly.\n\nYour future client,\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2023-08-02T22:03:12.000Z","issue":"Took or threatened to take negative or legal action","sub_product":"Other debt","zip_code":"19709","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7341019","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WSFS FINANCIAL CORPORATION","date_received":"2023-08-02T21:58:07.000Z","state":"DE","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Seized or attempted to seize your property"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I believe that shareholders deserve to know exactly <em>what</em> was happening at this bank <em>during</em> that period and their investors have the right to question executive management and their motives surrounding this. There's a lot at play here, and their pressure has been mounting as I have still repeatedly increased my pressure seeking answers surrounding their behavior."]},"sort":[7.515555,"7341019"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14783545","_score":7.475979,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"Formal Complaint Attorney Misconduct and Consumer Rights Violations To : Nebraska Counsel for Discipline, Nebraska XXXX XXXX XXXX, Nebraska Attorney General XXXX XXXX XXXX, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ), XXXX, Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ), as well as the Minnesota XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( OLPR ), Minnesota Attorney XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and Minnesota Department XXXX XXXX I. Summary and Jurisdiction This complaint details a pattern of unethical conduct, procedural violations, and unlawful consumer abuse most recently by multiple attorneys not limited to XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX of XXXX XXXX Firm as well as a prior law firm with multiple attorneys from XXXX and XXXX across XXXX cases. All operating out of both Minnesota and Nebraska representing XXXX XXXX XXXX Services. The misconduct spans multiple areas : legal ethics, XXXX discrimination, FDCPA and FCRA violations, and judicial abuse. Therefore, this complaint is submitted to multiple appropriate bodies for investigation and immediate action. \nXXXX. Parties Involved - XXXX XXXX Initiating attorney for the duplicate case refiled, XXXX XXXX XXXX - XXXX XXXX Filed improper XX/XX/XXXX blanket denial and retaliatory XX/XX/XXXX motion to amend responses nearly XXXX days after the fact on a voluntary dismissal with prejudice. \n- XXXX XXXX Appeared XX/XX/XXXX, in place of XXXX XXXX, who failed to appear, declared himself as the Lead Attorney and sole counsel from the firm going forward, allowed XXXX unauthorized filings in violation of cease and desist that he acknowledged was in place and on record. \nXXXX. Chronology and Procedural Misconduct XX/XX/XXXX : XXXX XXXX Firm refiles CI XXXX XXXX XXXX under XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX via XXXX XXXX, despite improper standing and no tradeline in the locked, frozen, and fraud alerted credit files despite unauthorized access. \nXX/XX/XXXX : Defendant files counterclaims, XXXX violations, renewed motions, retaliation notices, disciplinary requests. \nXX/XX/XXXX : XXXX XXXX knowingly files an improper general denial, violating XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX. \nXX/XX/XXXX : Case dismissed with prejudice. No compliance at all throughout for what they initiated for the second time. No motions by XXXX ruled on still preserved and pending. \nXX/XX/XXXX : Court hearing XXXX confirms on record he is the lead attorney and is the sole counsel going forward. He threatened the defendant on record to cease the pursuit of counterclaims or they will refile the case yet again. XXXX continuance granted for stipulation on my pending motions and counterclaims. No stipulation or settlement was attempted by the Plaintiff or counsel in violation of the XXXX continuance request causing unnecessary delay and continuing harm. \nXX/XX/XXXX : nearly XXXX days after the hearing giving them additional time to respond. Defendant files motion for the hearing to rule on pending motions per the XXXX 's order. It also outlined ongoing misconduct and continued violations. \nXX/XX/XXXX : XXXX files retaliatory amendment motion without service. Court grants on a Friday. Defendant was never provided the motion nor had the opportunity to object to the obvious retaliatory act prior to it being ordered. \nXX/XX/XXXX : Defendant files Motion to Strike citing systemic XXXX, due process, and ethics violations. \nIV. Legal and Ethical Violations Committed XXXX but not limited to : XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX Lack of candor toward the tribunal XXXX Unfairness toward opposing party XXXX / XXXX Lack of competence and diligence XXXX General misconduct Title XXXX of the XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) Denial of access to justice due to XXXX XXXX C.F.R. XXXX Discriminatory court access XXXX XXXX. XXXX, XXXX Harassment and failure to validate debt ( FDCPA ) XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( b ) Failure to investigate disputed debts ( FCRA ) XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX claims and contentions ( XXXX 's blanket XXXX ) XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX Impartiality and decorum of the tribunal ( XXXX 's complicity XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX Respect for rights of third persons ( XXXX retaliation ) XXXX XXXX. XXXX Violation of civil rights under XXXX of law ( systemic XXXX process denial ) Bivens v. XXXX Unknown Named Agents, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) Right to constitutional remedies when federal actors are complicit XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) Due process rights for pro se litigants must be respected XXXX XXXX. XXXX Prohibits discrimination in public services ( Title XXXX XXXX ) XXXX U.S.C. XXXX Section XXXX XXXX XXXX, applies to federally funded programs including courts XXXX XXXX. XXXX Obligation to ensure effective communication with XXXX individuals The following Nebraska Rules of Professional Conduct have also been violated by Attorneys XXXX and XXXX and should serve as procedural grounds for formal discipline : Rule XXXX ( Competence ) Rule XXXX ( Meritorious Claims and Contentions ) Rule XXXX ( Candor to the Tribunal ) Rule XXXX ( Respect for Rights of Third Persons ) Rule XXXX ( Misconduct ) The following Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct ( MRPC ) violations XXXX also include but are not limited to : Rule XXXX ( c ) - Disobeying a court order Rule XXXX ( a ) - Unfairness to opposing party Rule XXXX - Truthfulness in statements Rule XXXX ( d ) - Conduct prejudicial to justice Rule XXXX ( a ) - Violation through others Rule XXXX - Lack of competence Rule XXXX - Expediting litigation Rule XXXX ( g ) - Discrimination or harassment Rule XXXX ( c ) - Conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation Rule XXXX ( b ) - Responsibilities of a supervisory lawyer Rule XXXX ( a ) Confidentiality These violations show intentional, repeated disregard for ethical and procedural duties and merit immediate professional sanction. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX These actions that have now been allowed to go on for over a year and are fully evidenced across XXXX court records and have inflicted serious mental, emotional, physical, and financial harm on a vulnerable pro se litigant, while the attorneys exploited procedural gaps and weaponized litigation. The chilling effect of these lawsuits now prevents the Defendant from disputing further inaccurate credit entries for fear of immediate retaliatory litigation. This is a continuing injury and results in sustained, compounding financial and emotional harm. \nIt also undermines public confidence in legal institutions and the equal application of law. Furthermore, XXXX XXXX Firm and its attorneys appear to be continuing the same unlawful practices previously employed by XXXX XXXX XXXX, another firm that represented XXXX Funding in the related cases. This includes a disturbing pattern of constitutional violations, denial of due process, and disregard for the civil and XXXX rights of the Defendant. Despite repeated notifications to courts and regulators, no entity has taken meaningful action to address or restrain this coordinated abuse of legal process and perpetrated throughout the court record of XXXX cases including the current case part XXXX of CI XXXX XXXX XXXX involving my properly filed and preserved counterclaims. \nThis abuse is not isolated. It reflects a broader systemic pattern whereby XXXX XXXX and its agents weaponize the legal system against consumers, particularly vulnerable and pro se individuals, through attorney-swapping, serial filings, forum shopping, and retaliation in response to protected activity. These practices, now employed by XXXX XXXX XXXX, mirror those previously used by XXXX XXXX XXXX and warrant urgent oversight as ongoing, coordinated legal terrorism. \n\nAs of XX/XX/XXXX, highlighting the timeline of the most recent intentional harm that reflects extensive procedural neglect and retaliatory conduct : XXXX days since XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX was filed on XX/XX/XXXX including complete non-compliance and failure to appear then voluntarily dismissed on XX/XX/XXXX. All motions filed still pending and unanswered. \nXXXX days since case XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX was filed on XX/XX/XXXX simultaneously also with complete non-compliance and failure to appear and then voluntarily dismissed on XX/XX/XXXX. All motions and filings have gone unaddressed and remain pending. \nXXXX  days since XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX was refiled by XXXX XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX under improper standing. \nXXXX days since Defendants counterclaims were filed. \nXXXX days since Attorney XXXX XXXX submitted an improper blanket denial violating XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX and deemed admitted per Nebraska law. \nXXXX days since the case was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice, yet still revived in retaliation to legally protected actions. \nXXXX  days since XXXX XXXX confirmed on record at the hearing on XX/XX/XXXX that he alone would represent the XXXX going forward to eliminate the confusion by all the unauthorized attorney hopping. \nXXXX  days between Defendants XX/XX/XXXX filing exposing these failures and Plaintiffs retaliatory amendment to retroactively go back nearly XXXX days and now attempt to properly respond to the counterclaims. \nXXXX days from Plaintiffs improper motion on XX/XX/XXXX to this filing date during which time no service or objection opportunity was permitted regarding the plaintiff 's motion for leave to file amended answer to defendants counterclaim. \n\nThis chronology demonstrates a pattern of systemic discrimination and retaliation. The XXXX has failed to rule on any of Defendants properly filed motions for over a year, while allowing Plaintiffs unauthorized and procedurally invalid retaliatory filings within hours. \nThe Courts willingness to grant ex parte orders, ignore pending motions, dismissals, and accept clearly retaliatory filings while refusing to enforce its own record has made it complicit in denying this Defendant equal access to justice. This violates core due process protections under the XXXX Amendment and XXXX Title XXXX. Such imbalanced treatment of a vulnerable pro se litigant constitutes a denial of due process, as well as a direct violation of protections under the Americans with XXXX XXXX, the XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX. XXXX. \n\nAs of the date of this complaint, Plaintiff and its legal representatives including multiple law firms have committed over XXXX documented procedural, statutory, and constitutional violations. These include violations of the XXXX, FDCPA, FCRA, and due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The repeated and escalating nature of these acts carried out on court record and in direct retaliation for protected filings constitutes continued intentional infliction of emotional distress ( IIED ). Defendant continues to suffer severe harm, loss of livelihood, decreased quality of life, deteriorating health, and fear of legal retaliation for asserting fundamental rights. Cumulative damages now exceed {$750000.00}, supported by continuing injury theory and stacking of statutory remedies under XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( FDCPA ), XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( XXXX ), and XXXX XXXX. XXXX. See XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) ( emotional distress in civil rights claims ), Doe XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) ( statutory damages ), and State ex rel. XXXX v. XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( XXXX ) ( affirming cumulative statutory penalties where violations are ongoing and willful ). \n\nVI. XXXX Requested XXXX. Investigate and discipline XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and others involved for misconduct. \nXXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX and XXXX for possible systemic violations. \nXXXX. Refer to DOJ XXXX XXXX XXXX for XXXX systemic discrimination. \nXXXX. XXXX and publicly censure the individual attorneys for their extensive misconduct. \nXXXX. Require restitution or corrective measures where applicable. \nXXXX. Require improved XXXX compliance and service of process. \nXXXX. Accept this complaint as a continued notice of pattern of abuse for future consumer alerts. \nThis complaint is submitted under oath and penalty of perjury to multiple agencies empowered to investigate legal malpractice, ethical violations, consumer fraud, and civil rights abuses, including those involving XXXX Title XXXX. The undersigned respectfully invokes the jurisdiction of all listed bodies and seeks a formal inquiry, discipline, and any enforcement remedies appropriate under state, federal, or professional codes. \nI, as a pro se litigant, have been expected to meet every procedural and substantive standard or face judgement, while Plaintiff represented by licensed counsel has been permitted to bypass deadlines, ignore filings, and violate court protocol without consequence. This disparity is not only unfair, it is unconstitutional. \nI declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing facts are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and abilities. \n\nExecuted on XX/XX/XXXX. \nRespectfully submitted, XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-07-21T02:01:58.000Z","issue":"Took or threatened to take negative or legal action","sub_product":"I do not know","zip_code":"690XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14783545","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Gurstel Law Firm, P.C.","date_received":"2025-07-21T01:53:39.000Z","state":"NE","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Sued you without properly notifying you of lawsuit"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["XXXX ( b ) Failure to <em>investigate</em> disputed debts ( FCRA ) XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX claims and contentions ( XXXX 's blanket XXXX ) XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX Impartiality and decorum of the tribunal ( XXXX 's complicity XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX Respect for <em>rights</em> of third persons ( XXXX retaliation ) XXXX XXXX. XXXX Violation of civil <em>rights</em> under XXXX of law ( systemic XXXX process denial ) Bivens v."]},"sort":[7.475979,"14783545"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6420422","_score":6.9083605,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"TransUnion XXXX, XXXX XXXX, a consumer citizen of XXXX sent a letter on XXXX XXXX, via certified mail with request of validation of debts. The letter was received by XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. As it pertains to my consumer report, upon information and belief the company is attempting to collect an alleged debt pursuant to 15 USC 1692a ( 5 ). With respect to Account # XXXX, there is no debt owed. This is not a refusal with regard to payment of an alleged debt, but a request that the above claim is disputed and validation is requested ( FDCPA 15 USC 1692g Sec 809b ) in the following order : Full validation such as, confirmation of legal timeline to report on credit and/or collection procedures, validation of licensing requirements, posted bonding requirements, oversight on monthly payment histories, proper subscriber agreement compliance with credit reporting agencies and overall compliance with all FCRA and FDCPA by laws as instructed by federal law. It is upsetting to know such companies do not follow rules and laws. More importantly, companies such as the pursuant above should be held accountable for their actions. According to the FCRA a corporation is required to respond and complete and investigate within 30 days. As of XXXX, I still have not received anything pertaining to a complete investigation. Based upon evidence available to me, there is no debt owed. These laws are to make sure that there is a level of fairness to protect American consumers from nefarious, abusive reporting procedures on credit consumer reports, as well as illegal and deceptive collection practices. Also, I am Federally Protected Consumer and I have strong reason to believe I have been discriminated against by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Account # XXXX in XXXX, they NEVER SENT ME in all those years a Pre Adverse Notices, or NEVER SENT ME a Adverse Action Notices. I have strong reason to believe they have discriminated against me under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act ( ECOA ). XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX never informed me of my rights. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX has the obligation to correct action. ECOA protections extend through the life of loan. This comes about after a consumer sued XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX for closing his credit card account without providing an explanation ( as required under the ECOA ). The CFPB had filed a friend of the court brief in that case, stating that the ECOAs crucial protections against credit discrimination do not disappear the moment that credit is extended. Rather, ECOA shields existing borrowers from discrimination in all aspects of a credit arrangement. The CFPB released XXXX to reiterate creditors ' adverse action notice requirements under ECOA. I have made multiple attempts over 5 years in writing including certified mail starting in late XXXX to let XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX know about the many violations and discrimination and under TILA & BILLING ERRORS 15 USC 1666 falsely furnishing negative damaging information \" late payments and charge off \" on these accounts. I have tried to explain multiple times over the years to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX what the FEDERAL LAWS says in FCRA 15 USC the term credit card means any card, plate, coupon book or other credit device existing for the purpose of obtaining money, property, labor, or services on credit. And ALL credit transactions ORIGINATE FROM ME THE CONSUMER my signature, my social security number MY INSTRUMENT \" I EXTEND CREDIT '' and it is my right to operate in commerce. Does XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX know OR care what happens when penalties for not complying with the ECOA happen? Well it states Lenders that violate the provisions of the ECOA face civil liability for actual and punitive damages, the latter of which is limited to non-governmental entities and can amount to up to { {$10000.00} } for an individual claim or the lesser of { {$500000.00} } or 1 % of the lender 's net worth in a class action. \n\nNot only is XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX appear to be discriminating against me and denying me extending credit they have been damaging my credit worthiness for 5 years now, there tarnishing my name by furnishing negative information \" late payments and chargeoffs '' on my consumer reports as a way of coercion to pay these alleged debts which is \" false misleading representation 15 USC 1692E A debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation. It is UNJUST ENRICHMENT and Under 15 USC 1666B Grace period- If an open end consumer credit plan provides a time period within which an obligor may repay any portion of the credit extended without incurring an additional finance charge, such additional finance charge may not be imposed with respect to such portion of the credit extended for the billing cycle of which such period is a part, unless a statement which includes the amount upon which the finance charge for the period is based was mailed or delivered to the consumer not later than 21 days before the date specified in the statement by which payment must be made in order to avoid imposition of that finance charge. Which XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX this 21 days in advance so why are they furnishing negative damaging information \" late payments & charge offs '' on my consumer reports? I don't know maybe coercion, extortion, and wanting me to be quiet while I'm being violated and discriminated against these past 5 years but I'm not going to be silent anymore or be in fear of them. \n\nAlso there violating my privacy rights under the GRAMM-LEACH -BLILEY ACT by furnishing, spreading, around for profit my NONPUBLIC PERSONAL INFORMATION to non affiliated third parties. I never gave them my lawful or legal consent to share my information. And how can XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX say '' I owe '' this alleged debt and by them assuming this role to falsely believe they have the Power & Authority to close my accounts when FEDERAL LAW clearly states 18 USC 8 The term obligation '' or other security of the United States includes all bonds, certificates of indebtedness, XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX Federal Reserve notes, Federal Reserve bank notes, coupons, United States notes, Treasury notes, gold certificates, silver certificates, fractional notes, certificates of deposit, bills, checks, or drafts for money, drawn by or upon authorized officers of the United States, stamps and other representatives of value, of whatever denomination, issued under any Act of Congress, and canceled United States stamps. THE DEBT HAS ALREADY BEEN PAID BY THE UNITED STATES that's what that Federal Law is clearly stating so XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX can not use the excuse \" because the consumers lack of untimely payments '' as reason to of closed my accounts. I'm just trying to make it crystal clear that I have strong reason that under ECOA there is some Violations and Discrimination occurring. And there is no Law that states a '' a drop in a consumer 's XXXX XXXX '' is a valid reason to deny or cancel a consumer 's extension of credit. So XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX legally, or lawfully CAN NOT state that either. I'm asking the CFPB to draw on its authority to police unfair, deceptive and abusive practices to rein in lending discrimination against XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX against me. \n\nSo again XXXX XXXX has yet to address a dispute for a billing error that was raised in XXXX. They were sent payable instruments for the balance at the time of both accounts. Multiple instruments for each account. To date, the payments have never been applied to my credit card accounts. They have yet to acknowledge that they have received it and refuse to send it back in the case that it was not accepted. A negotiable instrument is an acceptable form of payment as there is no money since the bankruptcy of this country. XXXX XXXX continues to state that I owe them money for so-called outstanding bills and repayment of the money they \" gave '' or loaned me. However, banks are not allowed to make loans according to 12 USC 83. The disclosures for these transactions have security interest clauses within it. A security interest can not be given to a person if the obligor has not already fulfilled their obligation. I am requesting the original wet-ink signed contract that compels me to perform in regards to this contract. A contract requires 2 signatures in order for it to be deemed valid. I have asked repeatedly for this information and this company keeps sending me a bunch of statements. In the case that XXXX XXXX can not provide me with the signed contract that I am requesting, they need to stop asking for repayment. \n\nI am requesting the return of my ANY AND ALL MONIES, down payments, as a cash down payment is a violation of TILA pursuant to 15 USC 1605 ( a ) and 15 USC 1662 ( 2 ) Please see attachment for affidavit and notice of rescission due in 20 days. Because pertinent information was withheld and neither clear nor conspicuous I blindly entered a consumer credit transaction with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and as a result they used my credit card ( as described in 15 USC 1602 ) and was extended credit in a consumer credit sale. they are now claiming that they originated the credit I extended to them, which is false Pursuant to federal law. They have committed fraud and several violations of the FDCPA and TILA. They are now threatening me for an alleged debt that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX claims I owe. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX has taken an unfair advantage of me as a consumer and they should be held accountable for deceiving me. \nTo add.. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Has committed several violations under the FDCPA, TILA, FCRA, and many more which they've violated my rights as a consumer. This is not an attempt to collect a debt. 15 U.S. Code 1692f. Unfair practices A debt collector may not use unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section : 15 U.S. Code 1692d - Harassment or abuse 15 U.S. Code 1692b. Acquisition of location information 15 U.S. Code 1692g - Validation of debts 15 U.S. Code 1692f. Unfair practices 15 U.S. Code 1692b. Acquisition of location information ( 4 ) not communicate by post card ( 5 ) no language or symbols on any envelope. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX was reporting a completely false debt which was causing a denial of the loan. I am a single mother of XXXX and I have been struggling for the past XXXX almost XXXX  years to improve life for our family and give my children a stable home just. I knew the account was not mine so I wrote my first dispute to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX As early as 6 years ago up to as recent as 15 days ago stating that XXXX an identity theft victim and as a result I wanted to see legal verification that this debt was approved or accepted by me. My first request was completely ignored years ago, I wrote another request and I even attempted to send the FTC REPORT. AND FOR THE POLICE REPORT Turns out you can not get a report if the incident occurred more than 12 months ago. But the FTC Website says either or.. Upon my most recent attempt 10 days later I received a letter from them stating that they found the account to be accurate. How is this possible, they had not provided legal proof or proof of identity? I re-stated several laws violated and to date they had still not provided proof per FCRA & FDCPA requirements in the event of identity theft, again stating that they were reporting accurate information and that they do not need to supply the requested information only that they have my name and address correct. How is this possible that someone can just say they have your name and address correct and you owe them a debt without no contract or legal proof whatsoever. How do they even know they have the right person??? \n\n\nIts very XXXX  to know that even thougXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  We still have entities that solicit and have employees working for them that continually break the law.. this places the livelihood and well being of many at risk .. physically, mentally and emotionally. \nMy children are being XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX I cant XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX HAS IMPOSED UP MY CONSUMER REPORT WITHOUT MY WRITTEN CONSENT OR PERMISSION.. we are being looked upon as lower class every day simply because XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX AGAINST ME. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT THEIR CONTACT WAS CLEAR MOR CONSPICUOUS.. I WAS NOT GIVEN THE OPTION TO OPT OUT AT ANY TIME I have a credit score of XXXX YET IM UNABLE TO OBTAIN OR USE MY CREDIT CARD ANYWHERE .. Im unable to GROW AT MY JOB AND GAIN A BETTER POSITION.. ONE I AM OVERQUALIFIED FOR MAY I ADD.. Simply because of XXXX XXXX horrendous practices to defame my character. \n\nThe following account does not belong to me and is a result of fraud that I did not authorize : XXXX XXXX- not my account, never done business with this company. Please block and remove all information resulting from Identity Theft pursuant to FCRA 605B ( 15 U.S.C. & 1681 c-2 ) which states that this account must be removed within 4 Business Days of receipt. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX Again TransUnion LLC Consumer Dispute Center XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX PA XXXX XX/XX/XXXX TRANSUNION 15 USC 1681 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( 2 ) ( 3 ) ( 4 ) ( b ), 15 USC 1681b ( a ) ( c ) ( 2 ), 15 USC 1681q, 15 USC 1681n ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ), XXXX USC 6821 ( a ) ( 1 10/17/2022 To Whom It May Concern : My name is XXXX XXXX and this complaint is not made in error neither is it being made by a third party.I declare under penalty of perjury ( under the laws of the United States , if executed outside of the United States ) that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Further, I certify that I am permitted by FEDERAL and STATE LAW to file this dispute. I also understand that knowing and willful misstatements or omissions of material facts constitutes a FEDERAL CRIMINAL VIOLATION punishable under 18 U.S.C. 1001. Additionally, these misstatements are punishable as perjury under 18 U.S.C. 1621. The items found within my credit report that I listed on the following pages are not related to any transaction that I made. I am alleging that a person or company- without my authorization- used my personal identifying information to apply for goods, services, or money ; and, was successful in creating some accounts. All is being investigated by the FTC. Be advised this is an identification theft notice I am requesting fraudulent accounts on my consumer report removed under Federal law and I have sent this notification to all of the creditors and consumer reporting agencies and have sent multiple documents supporting my claims Under the Fair Debt collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), I have the right to request validation This is NOT a request for \" verification '' or proof of my mailing address, but a request for VALIDATION made pursuant to 15 USC 1692g Sec. 809 ( b ) of the FDCPA. I respectfully request that your offices provide me with competent evidence that I have any legal obligation to the fore said items that you are reporting to my consumer reports At this time I will also inform vou that if your offices have or continue to report invalidated information this includes XXXX, TRANSUNION AND XXXX this action might constitute fraud under both federal and state laws. 15 U.S. Code 1681c-2 - Block of information resulting from identity theft Due to this fact, if any negative mark is found or continues to report on any of my credit reports by your company or the company you represent, I will not hesitate in bringing legal action against you for the following : Violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Defamation of Character. 15 U.S. Code 1681n - Civil liability for willful noncompliance I am sure your legal staff will agree that non-compliance with this request could put your company in serious legal trouble with the FTC and other state or federal agencies.\n\nIf your offices can provide the proper documentation as requested in the following declaration, I will require 30 days to investigate this information and during such time all reporting activity must cease and desist. 15 U.S.C 1692c Without the prior consent of the consumer given directly to the debt collector or the express permission of a court of competent authority, Also, during this validation period, if any action is taken which could be considered detrimental to any of my credit reports, I will consult with legal counsel for suit. This is violation 15 USC S 1681b Permissible purpose of consumer reports ( a ) IN GENERAL, Subject to subsection ( c ) any consumer reporting agency may furish a consumer report under the following circumstances and no other. ( 2 ) In accordance with the written instructions of the consumer to whom it relates. As a consumer, I am demanding a deletion of the following account 's This includes any listing of any information to a credit-reporting repository that could be inaccurate or invalidated. If your agency fails to respond to this validation request within 30 days from the date of your receipt, ( Which has long past.. most recent was 2 wks ago ) all references to this account must be deleted and completely removed from my credit file and a copy of such deletion request shall be sent to me immediately. It would be advisable that your records are in order before I am forced to take legal action. Please be advised XXXX, TRANSUNION AND XXXX. You need to remove all fraudulent inquiries from my consumer report. I've given the dates and the times of every inquiry that is on my consumer report. You shall remove the inquiries that are fraudulent on my consumer reports your credit reporting agency, and you shall do due diligence in the investigation of such fraudulent activities. The violations here I require compensation, for this has caused me grave harm purchased with that identifying number is an obligation of the United States in accordance with XXXX XXXX XXXX and being that you XXXX, TRANSUNION AND XXXX is attempting to collect a debt from I, the consumer makes you guilty and in violation of the False Claims Act ( FCA ) 31 U.S.C 3729-3733. XXXX, TRANSUNION AND XXXX is also in violation of 18 U.S.C 894 for using my consumer report with extortionate means as a way to coerce and swindle me into making payments on alleged debt not owed. I DID NOT AND DO NOT CONSENT to you XXXX, TRANSUNION AND XXXX furnishing this information to my consumer report. I did not give you authorization or permission to have my personal identifying information, which you have obtained by aggravated identity theft in accordance with 18 U.S.C 1028A. This is a notice to CEASE and DESIST of all illegal activities, including reporting which constitutes collection activities. This is also a NOTICE exercising my rights to prevent the processing of my personal data Failure to remove account in 4 days from my consumer report as requested will result in legal matters being taken and me turning you. I would also like to request, in writing, that no telephone contact be made by your company to my home or my place of employment. If your offices attempt telephone communication with me, including but not limited to computer generated calls and calls or correspondence sent to or with any third parties, it will be considered harassment and I will have no choice but to file suit. All future communications with me MUST be done in writing and sent to the address noted in this letter by USPS. It would be advisable that you assure your records are in order before I am forced to take legal action against your company and your client. This is an attempt to correct your records, any information obtained shall be used for that purpose. During this time collection activity must cease and desist. No reporting any information regarding said debts as related to the XXXX. \n\nIf any adverse action that is taken during this validation period that negatively impacts my Credit Report, including any potentially inaccurate information, I will instruct my legal consul to take relevant action against the guilty parties. You must immediately remove the collections you fraudulently placed on my credit reports until the such a time as the debt is proven valid. If I personally dont receive any response from you for VALIDATION of this account within 4 days, all references and claims to this account must be deleted from your files. \n\n\nTRANSUNION, I did not give you authorization or permission to have my personal identifying information, which you have obtained by aggravated identity theft in accordance with 18 U.S.C 1028A. This is a notice to CEASE and DESIST of all illegal activities, including reporting which constitutes collection activities. This is also a NOTICE exercising my rights to prevent the processing of my personal data Failure to remove account in 4 days from my consumer report as requested will result in legal matters being taken and me turning you. I would also like to request, in writing, that no telephone contact be made by your company to my home or my place of employment. If your offices attempt telephone communication with me, including but not limited to computer generated calls and calls or correspondence sent to or with any third parties, it will be considered harassment and I will have no choice but to file suit. All future communications with me MUST be done in writing and sent to the address noted in this letter by USPS. It would be advisable that you assure your records are in order before I am forced to take legal action against your company and your client. This is an attempt to correct your records, any information obtained shall be used for that purpose. During this time collection activity must cease and desist. If any adverse action that is taken during this validation period that negatively impacts my Credit Report, including any potentially inaccurate information, I will instruct my legal consul to take relevant action against the guilty parties. You must immediately remove the collections you fraudulently placed on my credit reports until the such a time as the debt is proven valid. If I personally dont receive any response from you for VALIDATION of this account within 4 days, all references and claims to this account must be deleted from your files. To Whom It May Concern : In accordance with the fair credit act Experian- has violated my rights. \nThe late payment reporting XXXX XXXX. Account # XXXX XXXX XXXX - Charge Off Closed ( Along with the other aground listed below ) is inaccurate. I never made late payments. During covid a lot of peoples info was mixed up XXXX needs to be deleted.also has violated my rights. During XXXX the data breach has my info exposed. I filed FTC XXXX report. \n\nThese inquiries need to be deleted. Law 15 U.S.C. 1681 602 A states I have a right to privacy.15 USC 1681 604 A SECTION 2 : also states a consumer reporting agency can not furnish a account without my written instructions 15 U.S.C 1681 1666B :","date_sent_to_company":"2023-01-11T03:37:03.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"30016","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"6420422","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2023-01-11T03:14:25.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I am alleging that a person or company- without my authorization- used my personal identifying information to <em>apply</em> for goods, services, or money ; and, was successful in creating some accounts. All is being <em>investigated</em> by the FTC."]},"sort":[6.9083605,"6420422"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6420097","_score":6.9083605,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, a consumer citizen of XXXX sent a letter on XXXX XXXX, via certified mail with request of validation of debts. The letter was received by NAVY FCU on XX/XX/XXXX. As it pertains to my consumer report, upon information and belief the company is attempting to collect an alleged debt pursuant to 15 USC 1692a ( 5 ). With respect to Account # XXXX, there is no debt owed. This is not a refusal with regard to payment of an alleged debt, but a request that the above claim is disputed and validation is requested ( FDCPA 15 USC 1692g Sec 809b ) in the following order : Full validation such as, confirmation of legal timeline to report on credit and/or collection procedures, validation of licensing requirements, posted bonding requirements, oversight on monthly payment histories, proper subscriber agreement compliance with credit reporting agencies and overall compliance with all FCRA and FDCPA by laws as instructed by federal law. It is upsetting to know such companies do not follow rules and laws. More importantly, companies such as the pursuant above should be held accountable for their actions. According to the FCRA a corporation is required to respond and complete and investigate within 30 days. As of XXXX, I still have not received anything pertaining to a complete investigation. Based upon evidence available to me, there is no debt owed. These laws are to make sure that there is a level of fairness to protect American consumers from nefarious, abusive reporting procedures on credit consumer reports, as well as illegal and deceptive collection practices. Also, I am Federally Protected Consumer and I have strong reason to believe I have been discriminated against by NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION Account # XXXX in XXXX, they NEVER SENT ME in all those years a Pre Adverse Notices, or NEVER SENT ME a Adverse Action Notices. I have strong reason to believe they have discriminated against me under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act ( ECOA ). NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION never informed me of my rights. NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION has the obligation to correct action. ECOA protections extend through the life of loan. This comes about after a consumer sued NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION for closing his credit card account without providing an explanation ( as required under the ECOA ). The CFPB had filed a friend of the court brief in that case, stating that the ECOAs crucial protections against credit discrimination do not disappear the moment that credit is extended. Rather, ECOA shields existing borrowers from discrimination in all aspects of a credit arrangement. The CFPB released Circular to reiterate creditors ' adverse action notice requirements under ECOA. I have made multiple attempts over 5 years in writing including certified mail starting in late 2018 to let NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION know about the many violations and discrimination and under TILA & BILLING ERRORS 15 USC 1666 falsely furnishing negative damaging information \" late payments and charge off \" on these accounts. I have tried to explain multiple times over the years to NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION what the FEDERAL LAWS says in FCRA 15 USC the term credit card means any card, plate, coupon book or other credit device existing for the purpose of obtaining money, property, labor, or services on credit. And ALL credit transactions ORIGINATE FROM ME THE CONSUMER my signature, my social security number MY INSTRUMENT \" I EXTEND CREDIT '' and it is my right to operate in commerce. Does NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION know OR care what happens when penalties for not complying with the ECOA happen? Well it states Lenders that violate the provisions of the ECOA face civil liability for actual and punitive damages, the latter of which is limited to non-governmental entities and can amount to up to { {$10000.00} } for an individual claim or the lesser of { {$500000.00} } or 1 % of the lender 's net worth in a class action.\n\nNot only is NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION appear to be discriminating against me and denying me extending credit they have been damaging my credit worthiness for 5 years now, there tarnishing my name by furnishing negative information \" late payments and chargeoffs '' on my consumer reports as a way of coercion to pay these alleged debts which is \" false misleading representation 15 USC 1692E A debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation. It is UNJUST ENRICHMENT and Under 15 USC 1666B Grace period- If an open end consumer credit plan provides a time period within which an obligor may repay any portion of the credit extended without incurring an additional finance charge, such additional finance charge may not be imposed with respect to such portion of the credit extended for the billing cycle of which such period is a part, unless a statement which includes the amount upon which the finance charge for the period is based was mailed or delivered to the consumer not later than 21 days before the date specified in the statement by which payment must be made in order to avoid imposition of that finance charge. Which NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION NEVER PERFORMED this 21 days in advance so why are they furnishing negative damaging information \" late payments & charge offs '' on my consumer reports? I don't know maybe coercion, extortion, and wanting me to be quiet while I'm being violated and discriminated against these past 5 years but I'm not going to be silent anymore or be in fear of them.\n\nAlso there violating my privacy rights under the GRAMM-LEACH -BLILEY ACT by furnishing, spreading, around for profit my NONPUBLIC PERSONAL INFORMATION to non affiliated third parties. I never gave them my lawful or legal consent to share my information. And how can NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION say '' I owe '' this alleged debt and by them assuming this role to falsely believe they have the Power & Authority to close my accounts when FEDERAL LAW clearly states 18 USC 8 The term obligation '' or other security of the United States includes all bonds, certificates of indebtedness, national bank currency , Federal Reserve notes, Federal Reserve bank notes, coupons, United States notes, Treasury notes, gold certificates, silver certificates, fractional notes, certificates of deposit, bills, checks, or drafts for money, drawn by or upon authorized officers of the United States, stamps and other representatives of value, of whatever denomination, issued under any Act of Congress, and canceled United States stamps. THE DEBT HAS ALREADY BEEN PAID BY THE UNITED STATES that's what that Federal Law is clearly stating so NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION can not use the excuse \" because the consumers lack of untimely payments '' as reason to of closed my accounts. I'm just trying to make it crystal clear that I have strong reason that under ECOA there is some Violations and Discrimination occurring. And there is no Law that states a '' a drop in a consumer 's credit score '' is a valid reason to deny or cancel a consumer 's extension of credit. So NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION legally, or lawfully CAN NOT state that either. I'm asking the CFPB to draw on its authority to police unfair, deceptive and abusive practices to rein in lending discrimination against NAVY FEDERRAL CREDIT UNION against me.\n\nSo again Navy Federal has yet to address a dispute for a billing error that was raised in XXXX. They were sent payable instruments for the balance at the time of both accounts. Multiple instruments for each account. To date, the payments have never been applied to my credit card accounts. They have yet to acknowledge that they have received it and refuse to send it back in the case that it was not accepted. A negotiable instrument is an acceptable form of payment as there is no money since the bankruptcy of this country. Navy Federal continues to state that I owe them money for so-called outstanding bills and repayment of the money they \" gave '' or loaned me. However, banks are not allowed to make loans according to 12 USC 83. The disclosures for these transactions have security interest clauses within it. A security interest can not be given to a person if the obligor has not already fulfilled their obligation. I am requesting the original wet-ink signed contract that compels me to perform in regards to this contract. A contract requires 2 signatures in order for it to be deemed valid. I have asked repeatedly for this information and this company keeps sending me a bunch of statements. In the case that Navy Federal can not provide me with the signed contract that I am requesting, they need to stop asking for repayment. \n\nI am requesting the return of my ANY AND ALL MONIES, down payments, as a cash down payment is a violation of TILA pursuant to 15 USC 1605 ( a ) and 15 USC 1662 ( 2 ) Please see attachment for affidavit and notice of rescission due in 20 days. Because pertinent information was withheld and neither clear nor conspicuous I blindly entered a consumer credit transaction with NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION and as a result they used my credit card ( as described in 15 USC 1602 ) and was extended credit in a consumer credit sale. they are now claiming that they originated the credit I extended to them, which is false Pursuant to federal law. They have committed fraud and several violations of the FDCPA and TILA. They are now threatening me for an alleged debt that NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION claims I owe. NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION has taken an unfair advantage of me as a consumer and they should be held accountable for deceiving me.\n\nTo add..\n\nNAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION Has committed several violations under the FDCPA, TILA, FCRA, and many more which they've violated my rights as a consumer. This is not an attempt to collect a debt. 15 U.S. Code 1692f. Unfair practices A debt collector may not use unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section : 15 U.S. Code 1692d - Harassment or abuse 15 U.S. Code 1692b. Acquisition of location information 15 U.S. Code 1692g - Validation of debts 15 U.S. Code 1692f. Unfair practices 15 U.S. Code 1692b. Acquisition of location information ( 4 ) not communicate by post card ( 5 ) no language or symbols on any envelope.\n\nNAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION LLC was reporting a completely false debt which was causing a denial of the loan. I am a single mother of 7 and I have been struggling for the past 6 almost 7 years to improve life for our family and give my children a stable home just. I knew the account was not mine so I wrote my first dispute to NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION LLC As early as 6 years ago up to as recent as 15 days ago stating that Im an identity theft victim and as a result I wanted to see legal verification that this debt was approved or accepted by me. My first request was completely ignored years ago, I wrote another request and I even attempted to send the FTC REPORT. AND FOR THE POLICE REPORT Turns out you can not get a report if the incident occurred more than 12 months ago. But the FTC Website says either or.. Upon my most recent attempt 10 days later I received a letter from them stating that they found the account to be accurate. How is this possible, they had not provided legal proof or proof of identity? I re-stated several laws violated and to date they had still not provided proof per FCRA & FDCPA requirements in the event of identity theft, again stating that they were reporting accurate information and that they do not need to supply the requested information only that they have my name and address correct. How is this possible that someone can just say they have your name and address correct and you owe them a debt without no contract or legal proof whatsoever. How do they even know they have the right person???\n\nIts very disheartening to know that even though IN XXXX WE TRUST!! We still have entities that solicit and have employees working for them that continually break the law.. this places the livelihood and well being of many at risk .. physically, mentally and emotionally. \nMy children are being bullied in school because I cant afford to clothe them properly, I cant afford to cloth them properly because of the derogatory info NAVY FEDERAL HAS IMPOSED UP MY CONSUMER REPORT WITHOUT MY WRITTEN CONSENT OR PERMISSION.. we are being looked upon as lower class every day simply because NAVY FEDERAL DISCRIMINATION AGAINST ME. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT THEIR CONTACT WAS CLEAR MOR CONSPICUOUS.. I WAS NOT GIVEN THE OPTION TO OPT OUT AT ANY TIME I have a credit score of XXXX YET IM UNABLE TO OBTAIN OR USE MY CREDIT CARD ANYWHERE .. Im unable to GROW AT MY JOB AND GAIN A BETTER POSITION.. ONE I AM OVERQUALIFIED FOR MAY I ADD.. Simply because of NAVY FCUs horrendous practices to defame my character.\n\nThe following account does not belong to me and is a result of fraud that I did not authorize : NAVY FCU- not my account, never done business with this company. Please block and remove all information resulting from Identity Theft pursuant to FCRA 605B ( 15 U.S.C. & 1681 c-2 ) which states that this account must be removed within 4 Business Days of receipt. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX Again XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX PA XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX 15 USC 1681 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( 2 ) ( 3 ) ( 4 ) ( b ), 15 USC 1681b ( a ) ( c ) ( 2 ), 15 USC 1681q, 15 USC 1681n ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ), XXXX USC 6821 ( a ) ( XXXX XX/XX/XXXX To Whom It May Concern : My name is XXXX XXXX and this complaint is not made in error neither is it being made by a third party.I declare under penalty of perjury ( under the laws of the United States , if executed outside of the United States ) that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Further, I certify that I am permitted by FEDERAL and STATE LAW to file this dispute. I also understand that knowing and willful misstatements or omissions of material facts constitutes a FEDERAL CRIMINAL VIOLATION punishable under 18 U.S.C. 1001. Additionally, these misstatements are punishable as perjury under 18 U.S.C. 1621. The items found within my credit report that I listed on the following pages are not related to any transaction that I made. I am alleging that a person or company- without my authorization- used my personal identifying information to apply for goods, services, or money ; and, was successful in creating some accounts. All is being investigated by the FTC. Be advised this is an identification theft notice I am requesting fraudulent accounts on my consumer report removed under Federal law and I have sent this notification to all of the creditors and consumer reporting agencies and have sent multiple documents supporting my claims Under the Fair Debt collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), I have the right to request validation This is NOT a request for \" verification '' or proof of my mailing address, but a request for VALIDATION made pursuant to 15 USC 1692g Sec. 809 ( b ) of the FDCPA. I respectfully request that your offices provide me with competent evidence that I have any legal obligation to the fore said items that you are reporting to my consumer reports At this time I will also inform vou that if your offices have or continue to report invalidated information this includes XXXX, XXXX AND XXXX this action might constitute fraud under both federal and state laws. 15 U.S. Code 1681c-2 - Block of information resulting from identity theft Due to this fact, if any negative mark is found or continues to report on any of my credit reports by your company or the company you represent, I will not hesitate in bringing legal action against you for the following : Violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Defamation of Character. 15 U.S. Code 1681n - Civil liability for willful noncompliance I am sure your legal staff will agree that non-compliance with this request could put your company in serious legal trouble with the FTC and other state or federal agencies. \n\n\n\nIf your offices can provide the proper documentation as requested in the following declaration, I will require 30 days to investigate this information and during such time all reporting activity must cease and desist. 15 U.S.C 1692c Without the prior consent of the consumer given directly to the debt collector or the express permission of a court of competent authority, Also, during this validation period, if any action is taken which could be considered detrimental to any of my credit reports, I will consult with legal counsel for suit. This is violation 15 USC S 1681b Permissible purpose of consumer reports ( a ) IN GENERAL, Subject to subsection ( c ) any consumer reporting agency may furish a consumer report under the following circumstances and no other. ( 2 ) In accordance with the written instructions of the consumer to whom it relates. As a consumer, I am demanding a deletion of the following account 's This includes any listing of any information to a credit-reporting repository that could be inaccurate or invalidated. If your agency fails to respond to this validation request within 30 days from the date of your receipt, ( Which has long past.. most recent was 2 wks ago ) all references to this account must be deleted and completely removed from my credit file and a copy of such deletion request shall be sent to me immediately. It would be advisable that your records are in order before I am forced to take legal action. Please be advised XXXX, XXXX AND XXXX. You need to remove all fraudulent inquiries from my consumer report. I've given the dates and the times of every inquiry that is on my consumer report. You shall remove the inquiries that are fraudulent on my consumer reports your credit reporting agency, and you shall do due diligence in the investigation of such fraudulent activities. The violations here I require compensation, for this has caused me grave harm purchased with that identifying number is an obligation of the United States in accordance with 18 U.S.C 8 and being that you XXXX, XXXX AND XXXX is attempting to collect a debt from I, the consumer makes you guilty and in violation of the False Claims Act ( FCA ) 31 U.S.C 3729-3733. XXXX, XXXX AND XXXX is also in violation of 18 U.S.C 894 for using my consumer report with extortionate means as a way to coerce and swindle me into making payments on alleged debt not owed. I DID NOT AND DO NOT CONSENT to you XXXX, XXXX AND XXXX furnishing this information to my consumer report. I did not give you authorization or permission to have my personal identifying information, which you have obtained by aggravated identity theft in accordance with 18 U.S.C 1028A. This is a notice to CEASE and DESIST of all illegal activities, including reporting which constitutes collection activities. This is also a NOTICE exercising my rights to prevent the processing of my personal data Failure to remove account in 4 days from my consumer report as requested will result in legal matters being taken and me turning you. I would also like to request, in writing, that no telephone contact be made by your company to my home or my place of employment. If your offices attempt telephone communication with me, including but not limited to computer generated calls and calls or correspondence sent to or with any third parties, it will be considered harassment and I will have no choice but to file suit. All future communications with me MUST be done in writing and sent to the address noted in this letter by USPS. It would be advisable that you assure your records are in order before I am forced to take legal action against your company and your client. This is an attempt to correct your records, any information obtained shall be used for that purpose. During this time collection activity must cease and desist. No reporting any information regarding said debts as related to the CRAS. \n\nIf any adverse action that is taken during this validation period that negatively impacts my Credit Report, including any potentially inaccurate information, I will instruct my legal consul to take relevant action against the guilty parties. You must immediately remove the collections you fraudulently placed on my credit reports until the such a time as the debt is proven valid. If I personally dont receive any response from you for VALIDATION of this account within 4 days, all references and claims to this account must be deleted from your files. \n\n\nXXXX, I did not give you authorization or permission to have my personal identifying information, which you have obtained by aggravated identity theft in accordance with 18 U.S.C 1028A. This is a notice to CEASE and DESIST of all illegal activities, including reporting which constitutes collection activities. This is also a NOTICE exercising my rights to prevent the processing of my personal data Failure to remove account in 4 days from my consumer report as requested will result in legal matters being taken and me turning you. I would also like to request, in writing, that no telephone contact be made by your company to my home or my place of employment. If your offices attempt telephone communication with me, including but not limited to computer generated calls and calls or correspondence sent to or with any third parties, it will be considered harassment and I will have no choice but to file suit. All future communications with me MUST be done in writing and sent to the address noted in this letter by XXXX. It would be advisable that you assure your records are in order before I am forced to take legal action against your company and your client. This is an attempt to correct your records, any information obtained shall be used for that purpose. During this time collection activity must cease and desist. If any adverse action that is taken during this validation period that negatively impacts my Credit Report, including any potentially inaccurate information, I will instruct my legal consul to take relevant action against the guilty parties. You must immediately remove the collections you fraudulently placed on my credit reports until the such a time as the debt is proven valid. If I personally dont receive any response from you for VALIDATION of this account within 4 days, all references and claims to this account must be deleted from your files. To Whom It May Concern : In accordance with the fair credit act XXXX has violated my rights. \nThe late payment reporting NAVY FCU. Account # XXXX XXXX XXXX - Charge Off Closed ( Along with the other aground listed below ) is inaccurate. I never made late payments. During covid a lot of peoples info was mixed up .It needs to be deleted.also has violated my rights. During XXXX the data breach has my info exposed. I filed FTC XXXX report. \n\nThese inquiries need to be deleted. Law 15 U.S.C. 1681 602 A states I have a right to privacy.15 USC 1681 604 A SECTION 2 : also states a consumer reporting agency can not furnish a account without my written instructions 15 U.S.C 1681 1666B :","date_sent_to_company":"2023-01-11T03:37:19.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"30016","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"6420097","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","date_received":"2023-01-11T03:37:11.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I am alleging that a person or company- without my authorization- used my personal identifying information to <em>apply</em> for goods, services, or money ; and, was successful in creating some accounts. All is being <em>investigated</em> by the FTC."]},"sort":[6.9083605,"6420097"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14479151","_score":6.797103,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"This complaint is a formal challenge to TransUnions ongoing failure to reinvestigate and correct the inaccurate reporting of my XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX credit card accounts. I am not disputing the existence of these accounts, but rather challenging the following : False and Unverifiable Ownership Claims Improper Billing After Account Closure Deceptive Settlement Practices Misreporting of Payment Activity Failure to Verify Information with Evidence Refusal to Correct or Delete Unverifiable Data XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Dispute Investigations Challenged : CFPB Complaint # XXXX Response dated XX/XX/XXXX TransUnion Investigation Results dated XX/XX/XXXX TransUnion Investigation Results XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Despite submitting extensive documentationincluding bank records, settlement communications, and contradictory letters from the furnishers themselvesTransUnion marked both accounts as verified as accurate on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, and issued a vague investigation summary in the XX/XX/XXXX, response to CFPB Complaint # XXXX. This repeated pattern of superficial responses and refusal to correct known inaccuracies violates my rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). \n\nSupporting evidence previously submitted in full. This complaint includes only updated investigation results, creditor letters, and SEC ownership documents to avoid duplication. \n\nThe issues outlined in this challenge apply to all three reinvestigation attempts, as they reflect a systemic failure by TransUnion to conduct a good faith and meaningful investigation in accordance with FCRA 611 ( a ) and Metro 2 compliance standards. \n\nThe sections that follow will outline specific discrepancies, timeline contradictions, ownership concerns, and regulatory violations supporting my request for full deletion or immediate correction of both accounts. \n\n1. Unverifiable Ownership Supported by SEC Filings ( EX-10.2 ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  is not the legal owner of the debts associated with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  accounts. As shown in the attached Amended and Restated Receivables Sales Agreement ( EX-10.2 ) between XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  and XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ( a subsidiary of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Bank hereby agrees to sell, transfer, assign, set-over, and otherwise convey to Receivables Purchaser, without recourse one hundred percent ( 100 % ) of the Receivables generated by Bank EX-10.2, Section 2 ( a ) This agreement confirms : 100 % of credit card receivables are sold by the XXXX XXXX XXXX \nThe sale is without recourse and structured as a true sale, not a secured loan. \nThe Bank retains only servicing duties, not ownership. \n\nAs a result, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  lacks legal standing to furnish tradeline data or pursue settlement collection after sale. Therefore, XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX brands under this structureare not legally reporting with verified ownership authority. Any credit reporting after the transfer constitutes a violation of the FCRA and must be corrected. This confirms XXXX, XXXX XXXX nor XXXX XXXX had the authority to credit report or collect on the account and neither entity retains ownership. So what entity verified and or validated this account? \n\nXXXX. Illegally Billing After Account Closure Contradictory letters and billing statements reveal that both XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX continued to charge fees and send billing statements for 6 months after the accounts were officially closed. This is illegal and violates federal consumer protection standards, including the Credit CARD Act and FCRA. \nXXXX XXXX Account closed on XX/XX/XXXX, per creditor response letters. \nDespite this, XXXX XXXX continued billing late fees through at least XX/XX/XXXX, disguised as settlement activity. \nTheir XX/XX/XXXX, letter explicitly admits : The fees continued to bill on the unpaid balance correctly.This is legally questionable. Once the account is closed and restricted, the creditor can not bill additional monthly fees unless expressly permitted in a settlement contract, which they refused to provide as stated in all of their letters. \n\nKey Timeline & Amounts : XX/XX/XXXX email : Account balance stated as {$390.00} XX/XX/XXXX email : Account balance increased to {$430.00} a {$41.00} increase in under XXXX weeks without explanation XX/XX/XXXX : I paid a total of {$400.00} Remaining amount due ( based on {$430.00} ) : {$34.00}, or at most {$75.00} if you consider the higher balance Despite this, I made additional payments : {$41.00} on XX/XX/XXXX {$50.00} on XX/XX/XXXX Yet on XX/XX/XXXX, I received another email stating I owed {$100.00}, with {$73.00} due to bring the account current. If the account was closed in XXXX how would {$73.00} bring the account current. Internal billing errors do not excuse this abusive behavior. \nXX/XX/XXXX email : Claimed account was past due {$150.00} I paid {$120.00} over the {$75.00} potentially remainingyet continued receiving emails stating I was past due and being forced into an unverifiable settlement arrangement with no written terms, no proof of what the fees represented, and no disclosure of why my balance continued increasing. \n\nSummary : I made four post-closure payments, totaling {$520.00}, on an account they admitted was closed. The additional billing was illegal, lacked transparency, and held no contractual justification. \n\nXXXX XXXX Account closed on XX/XX/XXXX, per creditor response letters. \nYet XXXX XXXX also continued charging fees and requiring payments through XX/XX/XXXX, with the same vague language as XXXX XXXX. \nIn the XX/XX/XXXX, letter, they stated the account continued to bill on the unpaid balance correctly after closuredespite no legal or contractual authority to do so. \nKey Timeline & Amounts : XX/XX/XXXX email : Balance stated as {$440.00} XX/XX/XXXX email : Balance increased to {$450.00} XX/XX/XXXX : I paid {$400.00} Remaining amount should have been no more than {$54.00} {$50.00} payment on XX/XX/XXXX made under pressure from phone agents claiming fees would continue even though the account was closed Yet : XX/XX/XXXX email : Balance claimed was {$160.00}, with {$110.00} due XX/XX/XXXX email : Account reported as {$200.00} past due In total, I paid {$450.00} after closure on an account that shouldve only had a {$54.00} balance. There was no explanation for how balances increased to over {$200.00} after closure. I received monthly billing statements for 7 consecutive months with no activity, and again was never provided with written settlement terms despite multiple requests. \n\nAccording to federal billing standards and the Credit CARD Act, once a credit card account is closed and restricted : No further interest or fees should accrue unless transparently disclosed Creditors can not bill as if the account is still open without violating consumer rights Neither XXXX XXXX XXXXor XXXX XXXX  met these standards. They failed to explain what fees were being charged, how balances increased post-closure, or why settlement terms could not be documented. This pattern of ongoing billing on closed accounts, paired with refusal to provide settlement confirmation, constitutes illegal, unfair, and abusive practices under UDAAP, the FCRA, and the CARD Act. In additional all of this illegal creditor behavior on account they do not have ownership on, but Transunion verified and validated accounts as reporting accurately. All of this was documented in my XX/XX/XXXX CFPB complaint. \n\nXXXX. Contradictory Statements by Furnishers The written responses provided by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  contain multiple contradictions, making it clear that the information reported to TransUnion was not only unverifiable but based on inconsistent and unreliable records. These contradictions reinforce the conclusion that TransUnion failed to properly investigate under the FCRA. \n\nXXXX. Payment Denial vs. ConfirmationIn the CFPB responses dated XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX claimed that only a {$55.00} payment had been received, and XXXX XXXX claimed only a {$54.00} payment had been received. However, in subsequent responses dated XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, both furnishers confirmed that all payments from XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX had been received and properly posted. These are the exact payments I referenced in my initial disputes, including the {$300.00} and {$100.00} payments made in XX/XX/XXXX, that they also stated to have never received. \n\nThis directly contradicts their earlier denial of those same payments and clearly demonstrates that their recordkeeping is flawed, and their credit reporting can not be relied upon. TransUnions decision to mark these tradelines as verified based on such conflicting information shows a failure to review or assess the accuracy of the evidence provided by the furnishers. \n\nXXXX. Post-Closure Billing In multiple lettersincluding the XX/XX/XXXX responsesboth furnishers acknowledge that the accounts were closed due to delinquency in XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  and XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Despite this, both companies continued to bill fees and send monthly statements well into XX/XX/XXXX. This contradicts their own closure dates and suggests that they improperly treated the accounts as active long after they were legally closed and restricted. The billing of late fees and continued monthly updates during this period is misleading, unlawful, and unsupported by any transparent contractual basis. \n\nXXXX. Settlement Completed After Closure In the XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX letter, the creditor states that the settlement was completed on XX/XX/XXXX. However, they had already confirmed that the account was closed on XX/XX/XXXX. This means they continued billing, collecting, and reporting the account for over seven months after it was no longer open. This timeline is inherently contradictoryan account can not simultaneously be closed and restricted and active and accruing fees toward a settlement. These contradictions show that no accurate or consistent account history exists. \n\nXXXX. Claims of Original Creditor StatusNeither XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  clearly identify XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX the original creditor in their CFPB responses. Instead, they repeatedly state that no third party is involved, which is false and misleading by omission. This omission is significant, because it misrepresents the true ownership structure of the accounts and conceals the securitization and sale of the receivables. \nSEC-filed documentationspecifically the Amended and Restated Receivables Sales Agreement ( EX-10.2 ) proves that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX sells 100 % XXXX its receivables ( credit card debt ) to XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX subsidiary XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, without recourse . The agreement states : Bank hereby agrees to sell, transfer, assign, set-over, and otherwise convey to Receivables Purchaser, without recourse one hundred percent ( 100 % ) of the Receivables generated by Bank EX-10.2 , Section 2 ( a ) This confirms that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  does not retain ownership of the accounts and has no legal standing to furnish derogatory tradelines or collect post-sale. Its role is limited to servicing. Therefore, by failing to acknowledge the role of XXXX or XXXX, and by denying any third-party involvement, the furnishers have provided materially false and misleading information. \n\nThis misrepresentation of ownership and reporting authority directly violates the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and undermines the legal basis for TransUnions verification of these tradelines. \n\nWhy These Contradictions Are Legally Significant and Undermine Verification Each of the contradictions outlined above represents a direct violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and the Credit Reporting Agencies ' duty to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of consumer credit information. According to FCRA 611 ( a ), TransUnion is legally obligated to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation of any disputed account. That includes evaluating whether the information furnished is consistent, supported by documentation, and based on accurate account records. None of those conditions were met here. \nThe payment denial vs. confirmation issue proves that furnishers initially misrepresented the facts of payment history. This means material account data was falseyet TransUnion still marked the information as verified, despite having my bank records and the creditors later confirmations that all payments were received. \nThe post-closure billing contradiction shows that both furnishers treated the accounts as active months after closure, billing fees and updating balances. This is not just misleadingit is illegal under federal law, including the Credit CARD Act, which restricts new charges or fees after closure unless properly disclosed and contractually agreed. TransUnion 's failure to question or investigate this ongoing billing activity on closed accounts shows gross negligence in their reinvestigation. \nThe settlement completion after account closure contradiction makes clear that the furnishers were applying settlement terms to accounts that were no longer legally collectible in the same way. The fact that balances were still increasing and being reported as past due months after closure, without written settlement documentation, renders the reporting inherently unverifiable. \nThe claim that no third party was involved, despite clear evidence from SEC documents that all receivables were sold to a third-party entity ( XXXX XXXX ), represents an intentional concealment of the actual creditor structure. This omission invalidates any claim that the furnishersor XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ongoing legal authority to report or collect on the debt. The FCRA requires accurate reporting of both account status and ownership, and TransUnion had a duty to investigate the ownership when I provided this documentation. \nGiven these contradictions, TransUnion could not have reasonably verified the accuracy of these accounts without either ignoring or disregarding the conflicting evidence and lack of supporting documentation. Therefore, TransUnion is in violation of FCRA 611, and the continued reporting of these tradelines is unlawful. These accounts must be corrected to reflect their true post-settlement statusor deleted entirely as unverifiable, misleading, and harmful to the consumer. \n\nTransUnion Continued Reporting After Account Closure Violates FCRA Accuracy Requirements Both the XXXX XXXX  and XXXX XXXX accounts were formally closed in XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, respectively. This is not speculativeit is clearly documented within TransUnions own credit report entries, which list the closure months explicitly. \nDespite this, TransUnion continued to allow furnishers to report balances, delinquencies, and settlement activity on these closed accounts well into XXXX, with past due statuses and payment updates reflected through XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nMost egregiously, TransUnion allowed : Past due balances to be reported in months when the accounts were already closed Monthly activity updates for accounts with no legitimate post-closure usage Settlement remarks and delinquency notations based on unverifiable, post-closure charges Ongoing tradeline updates without properly marking the accounts as Closed To date, TransUnion has still failed to notate either account as Closed, which creates the false impression that these are active or collectible debts. This is inaccurate and harmful, and it directly contradicts the closure information TransUnion already had on file. \nNothing should be reported on a closed accountespecially not delinquency notations or continued balance updates. Once an account is closed and restricted, it must reflect only its final resolved status. \n\nViolation of FCRA 607 ( b ) Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, TransUnion is legally obligated to : Follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom the report relates. FCRA 607 ( b ) That obligation does not permit blind reliance on furnishers, especially when : The account is documented as closed No purchases or charges occurred post-closure No written settlement documentation exists The consumer has provided contradictory evidence showing overpayment and incorrect balances By continuing to report : Post-closure delinquency and balance activity Settled status based on no formal agreement Past due amounts for periods when accounts were not even legally billable TransUnion affirmatively misrepresented the nature, status, and accuracy of both accounts. \n\nCRA Liability Is Independent of the Furnisher Even if a furnisher continues sending data after closure, TransUnion is not absolved of its responsibility under the FCRA. Regulatory guidance and case law are clear : a credit reporting agency must : Independently assess whether the data is internally consistent, Confirm that it is factually supported, And determine whether it is legally reportable. \n\nIn this case, none of that occurred. TransUnion ignored the closure dates, overpayment evidence, and contradictory furnisher statements, and chose to continue publishing derogatory data on two accounts that should have been resolved or removed.\n\nTransUnions decision to continue reporting both accounts well into 2024, while knowing they were closed in 2023, is a clear violation of FCRA 607 ( b ). It contradicts their own records, fails to meet basic verification standards, and further confirms that the accounts are inaccurate, unverifiable, and legally reportable only if corrected or deleted entirely. \n\nTransUnions Settled for Less Than Full Balance Remark Is Misleading and Unsubstantiated TransUnion currently reports both the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  accounts with the derogatory remark : SETTLED LESS THAN FULL BALANCE. \nThis is factually inaccurate, legally unsupported, and damaging to my credit profile. The remark implies that I failed to fulfill my repayment obligations when I, in fact, overpaid both accounts based on the actual balances stated at the time of closurenot on the inflated post-closure fees later added by the furnishers. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Overpayment : {$140.00} These are overpayments when measured against the balances provided by the furnishers in their own emails at the time of closure. The only reason the balances later appeared to increase was because unauthorized fees and charges were added post-closure, which I repeatedly disputed as unlawful and unsupported. I did not agree to those fees, nor did I authorize continued billing after account closure. \nAll of this informationincluding my bank statements, creditor emails showing original balances, and objections to the additional feeswas submitted in my initial disputes and was available to TransUnion during their reinvestigation. \n\nTransUnions Verification Failure Despite receiving this supporting documentation, TransUnion : Failed to reconcile the true account balances with the payments made Did not obtain or request any written settlement agreement to justify the settled for less remark Ignored clear evidence that I paid more than what was owed at closure This remark was accepted from the furnisher without verification, despite the fact that the furnishers themselves admitted in their XX/XX/XXXX letters that no settlement letter could be located. \nIn the XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX letter, they stated : Your request for a copy of the letter confirming the settlement terms was reviewed. We do not locate a letter regarding a settlement offer dated XXXX. \nSo how was TransUnion able to verify a settlement occurred, let alone claim it was settled for less, if the creditor couldnt even produce documentation to support it? \nViolation of FCRA and Metro 2 Guidelines Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and Metro 2 industry standards, TransUnion is not permitted to : Rely solely on furnisher data that is contradicted by consumer evidence Report settled for less status without written, verifiable settlement terms Ignore overpayment evidence and knowingly furnish inaccurate derogatory remarks This conduct violates : FCRA 607 ( b ) failure to ensure accuracy FCRA 611 ( a ) failure to reinvestigate properly Metro 2 guidelines prohibition on reporting settlement status without documentation 4. Failure to Provide Settlement Letter Despite confirming that I was enrolled in a settlement arrangement, neither XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXr provided a written agreement outlining the settlement terms, payment schedule, or total payoff amount. Instead, they both stated that a settlement letter would only be issued after all payments had been madeleaving me with no written confirmation during the active settlement period. \n\nThis was not a one-time miscommunication. I received multiple settlement offer emails over several months, and I accepted the initial offer because the furnishers kept billing fees on a closed account and refused to stop unless a settlement was reached. However, even after I accepted that first settlement offer, I continued receiving new settlement emails each monthwith different amounts and terms. \n\nWhen I contacted their customer service to ask why settlement offers continued arriving after I had already accepted one, I was told they had no record of ever sending a settlement offer at all. This was deeply concerning. Their denial of the very email offers I received ( and accepted ) led me to request formal documentation proving I was enrolled in a settlementbut they repeatedly refused to provide it, as clearly shown in their CFPB response letters. \n\nFrom XXXX XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ) : The agent informed you a letter would be sent upon completion of the last settlement payment and to call to confirm it was completed. \nThis left me without any settlement letter during the full payment periodmeaning I had no protection if the terms changed or if they later misapplied payments. \n\nFrom XXXX XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ) : Only XXXX payment of {$54.00} has been received for the settlement... In the absence of any evidence of error in our reporting of the account, we are unable to fulfill the request to remove the account from the credit bureau reports. \nThis statement dismisses the multiple payments I made and my proof of those paymentsand relies on the existence of a settlement they simultaneously deny ever offering or documenting. \n\nFrom XXXX XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ) : We did not locate a copy of a letter confirming the settlement offer you referenced. \nThis contradicts their earlier acknowledgment that I was in a settlement and further demonstrates their internal records are incomplete, inconsistent, or deliberately withheld. \n\nFrom XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX ) : On XX/XX/XXXX, you agreed to pay the account for less than the balance and agreed to the amount of {$100.00} ... On XX/XX/XXXX, the settlement was completed, and the remaining balance was written off. \nDespite this acknowledgment of a settlement arrangement and completion, no letter was ever issued confirming the agreed terms, and my repeated requests were either ignored or dismissed. I completed all settlement payments by XX/XX/XXXX, and still received no documentation to reflect this. \n\nFrom XXXX XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ) : Your request for a copy of the letter confirming the settlement terms was reviewed. We do not locate a letter regarding a settlement offer dated XX/XX/XXXX. \nThis is particularly alarming because my payments were made based on that exact offer. Their denial of the agreements existence after accepting the payments reveals a serious procedural flaw or intentional deception. \n\nWhy This Is Deceptive and Legally Problematic The repeated refusal to provide written confirmation of a settlementwhile continuing to bill on a closed account, furnish negative credit data, and send conflicting settlement offersdemonstrates a pattern of deceptive and abusive conduct. \nThis prevented me from : Validating the terms of my agreement Disputing errors with supporting documentation Confirming completion of my obligations Protecting myself from ongoing derogatory credit reporting This conduct violates FCRA, FDCPA, and UDAAP standards by denying me the transparency and documentation I needed to resolve the account. Worse, TransUnion relied on the furnishers undocumented claims to continue verifying negative tradeline data. \nA valid settlement agreement must be documented. If the furnishers can not or will not produce such documentation, the credit reporting must be considered unverifiable and deleted. \n\n\n5. TransUnions Violations of FCRA TransUnion failed to meet its duty under FCRA 611 to : Conduct a reasonable reinvestigation Provide a description of the process Verify the data using competent evidence Delete unverifiable information if the furnisher can not confirm ownership and accuracy Instead, TransUnion relied on data furnishers who issued inconsistent, incomplete, and contradictory responses. \n\nAdditional Section : Why TransUnion 's Verification Was Inadequate and Legally Deficient Despite my submission of clear, documented contradictions and errors, TransUnion closed my disputes dated XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX with claims that no changes were needed or that the items had been verified. This position is not only unsupported by the evidenceit also violates the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA 611 ) and industry standards under Metro 2 guidelines, which require credit reporting agencies to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of the data they report. \n\nTransUnions Reporting Confirms the Problem According to the investigation summaries provided by TransUnion : For XXXX XXXX XXXX  TransUnion shows : Account closed : XX/XX/XXXX Last payment received : XX/XX/XXXX Reporting status : Paid, closed ; was 6090 days past due Delinquency listed : 90 days past due in XX/XX/XXXX Remark : \" Settled for less than full balance '' For XXXX XXXX TransUnion shows : Account closed : XX/XX/XXXX Last payment received : XX/XX/XXXX Reporting status : Paid, closed ; was paid as agreed Delinquency listed : 90 days past due in XX/XX/XXXX Remark : \" Settled for less than full balance '' These summaries confirm that TransUnion knowingly accepted and reported post-closure payment activity as settlement payments without requiring proper validation or documentation of the settlement agreements. This is not just carelessit contradicts the FCRAs requirement that data must be verifiable and accurate. \nThe Legal Issues : 1. No Settlement Letter ExistsBoth furnishers refused to provide documentation proving I was under an official settlement arrangement. Without such documentation, TransUnion had no legal or factual basis to verify settled for less status or any associated payment updates. Per FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ), CRAs must conduct a reasonable reinvestigation to determine whether the disputed information is inaccurate.\n\n2. Account Status vs. Payment Dates ConflictBoth accounts were closed in late XXXX, yet TransUnion shows last payments received in XX/XX/XXXX. This proves that TransUnion accepted ongoing reporting activity on closed accounts, which is a major compliance issue. No explanation was provided as to how payments made 67 months post-closure could lawfully update a closed tradelineespecially without proof of a settlement contract. \nXXXX. Furnisher Contradictions Were IgnoredThe same furnishers that TransUnion relied on to verify these accounts issued multiple CFPB responses that contradict themselves on key points, including : Payment amounts and dates Whether a settlement was ever offered Whether third parties were involved Whether accounts were still being billed post-closure XXXX. TransUnion ignored these contradictions entirely and provided no statement of how they resolved these conflicts before declaring the tradelines verified. \nXXXX. TransUnions Dispute Results Do Not Satisfy FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) I was never provided with : A description of how the reinvestigation was conducted The name, address, and documentation relied on from the furnisher Any explanation of how contradictory or missing information was reconciled Legal Grounds for Immediate Removal Based on the documented record of contradictions, misrepresentations, and TransUnions failure to lawfully reinvestigate or validate the disputed information, the continued reporting of these XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX tradelines is a clear violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). Since XXXX, I have consistently provided accurate and detailed documentationincluding payment confirmations, closure notices, and regulatory filingsthat directly refute the furnishers claims. \n\nDespite this, TransUnion has willfully ignored the facts and maintained inaccurate, misleading, and incomplete tradelines, acting in partnership with the furnishers to suppress necessary corrections that would reflect my true credit history. This conduct violates : FCRA 611 ( a ) for failure to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation, FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) for failure to delete or correct information that can not be verified, FCRA 607 ( b ) for failure to ensure maximum possible accuracy in consumer reports, And violates the principles of Metro 2 compliance and the CFPBs guidance on dispute resolution and data accuracy obligations. \n\nGiven the overwhelming evidence that : The furnishers statements are internally inconsistent, The accounts were closed months prior to the reported payment activity, And payments were initially denied, then later acknowledged by the furnishers TransUnion had no legal or factual basis to validate or continue reporting these accounts as accurate or verifiable. \n\nAccordingly, I demand the immediate and permanent deletion of both tradelines from my TransUnion credit file and request that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau hold TransUnion accountable for its failure to protect consumers from inaccurate and unverifiable credit reporting in violation of federal law.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-07-06T20:58:45.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"483XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14479151","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-07-06T20:24:03.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["The issues outlined in this challenge <em>apply</em> to all three reinvestigation attempts, as they reflect a systemic failure by TransUnion to conduct a good faith and meaningful <em>investigation</em> in accordance with FCRA 611 ( a ) and Metro 2 compliance standards. \n\nThe sections that follow will outline specific discrepancies, <em>timeline</em> contradictions, ownership concerns, and regulatory violations supporting my request for full deletion or immediate correction of both accounts. \n\n1."],"issue":["Problem with a company's <em>investigation</em> into an existing problem"],"sub_issue":["Their <em>investigation</em> did not fix an error on your report"]},"sort":[6.797103,"14479151"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"2732780","_score":6.552971,"_source":{"product":"Credit card or prepaid card","complaint_what_happened":"I opened a \" XXXX XXXX XXXX Business Credit Card '' through American Express on XX/XX/XXXX. My fiance had watched me open the account and confirmed the signup bonus. American Express was running a promotion for this card - all applicants who apply beforeXX/XX/XXXX receive the following terms : \" Earn XXXX bonus starpoints after you use your new card to make {$5000.00} in purchases within the first 3 months and an extra XXXX bonus starpoints after you make an additional {$3000.00} in purchases within the first 6 months. '' I spent {$5000.00} within 3 months and I received the XXXX starwood points as promised - this posted on XXXX/XXXX/XXXX. I completed the {$8000.00} spending requirement on XXXX XXXX and waited for my statement day of XXXX XXXX to see if anything had posted - it had not. I created a case in late XXXX / XXXX XXXX with American Express. After the hours of efforts I have spent via chat and several phones calls with XXXX to try to resolve, I have gotten nowhere. they claim that the XXXX promotional bonus was not attached to my account, but I have a screenshot of the application page before I submit that says otherwise. They will not accept the screenshot though, so it appears I am out of luck. \n\nThe thing is, I applied on XXXX XXXX via a referral link - i still have the link if required. I have been following this promotion very closely as I had really wanted this credit card. The promotion was started XXXX time and ran through XXXX XXXX. Being so late in the promotional period, the only possible links generated - affiliate, referral, or otherwise - was the XXXX offer. The fact that I do n't have the XXXX offer attached to my account is beyond me. After searching the internet, I have found several other instances of American Express XXXX XXXX XXXX Business credit card account holders who applied in late XXXX having a similar issue with their second bonuses posting. There is even a blog post about it : XXXX XXXX XXXX I can attach any more details, statements, screenshots, or instances of other people on the internet i have found having similar issues. \n\nThe XXXX supervisor I discussed with pretty much flat out said I was lying and was asking how I knew more about the card than she did. I mentioned I do n't, but I do n't open credit cards lightly and I did a ton of research before and after getting the card, and all the issues other people had. The person who referred me HAD to have referred me with a XXXX link because he previously sent me a XXXX referral link that had expired and he had to regenerate a brand new link to show XXXX for me. \n\nI feel lied to about the partnership and trust I put in Amex and XXXX. And again, I 'm not the only one having a similar issue. In addition to the blog post above, see all of the research and datapoints of other people having the issues with the XXXX XXXX cards. See below in Appendix. \n\nI understand that the extra XXXX points are a lot to ask for here, but I feel that American Express should have a vested interest in ensuring that their loyal customers have their rights honored and given the benefit of the doubt in the wake of all the confusion and issues. From all the research and other data points provided, I feel there has there is reason enough to believe that American Express has some glitch or technical issue in their database that is capturing the wrong signup bonuses for these XXXX cards. \n\nIf the full XXXX points are n't obtainable, can we please reach some sort of compromise for goodwill and good faith? \n\nI also reached out to American Express as I was told I could write in and ask for a copy of my application to prove what signup and terms I signed up under. After getting a notarized affidavit and several weeks of waiting, the only thing I received in the mail was my basic information that I used when signing up ( ie : name, date of birth, phone number, SSN, etc. ) and my IP address. There was nothing that would prove to me one way or the other that the signup bonus that I signed up under was honored or not. \n\nHonestly, I just want this to be over and am looking for any reasonable resolution. I definitely would not be spending all this time if I did n't think I had a good case. I love Amex and XXXX, but I always get a bad taste in my mouth when I see this card in my wallet now from the situation. \n\nThank you kindly, XXXX XXXX : See research below of other people 's issues : whencanwedothisagain They told me to wait 2 more weeks to see if they show up in my XXXX account. So much for using these points for my trip next month. \nAs of today it shows I have earned the correct number of points on the Amex site but the additional XXXX points are not in my XXXX account. What a mess. \nChecked again today and they said it 's still with the back end team to check back in 2 more weeks. Unreal.\nthemickstar Typically Amex is faster because they post it right after the charges post but I think something has been going on with some business bonuses. Our XXXX bonus was attached fine and posted just a few days ago. \n\nXXXX Yeah I 'm beginning to think that the massive influx of applications for the XXXX cards towards the end of that XXXX offer caused a lot of IT issues for Amex. \nYou 'd think their IT would be able to handle it but more and more they 're proving to be more like Citi. \n\nrovitm Signed up with XXXX offer, only getting XXXX to post nigson Taking 3 months to post XXXX ( in full ) whencanwedothisagain After disputing with Amex for 3 months I finally got my XXXX bonus on my business SPG for the XXXX offer. Win. Then I logged into my SPG account and in addition to my XXXX bonus there was a XXXX and XXXX from Amex. I did not realize Amex could remove points from my XXXX account. \nOne of the reps told me it was a glitch on their end and there had been other disputes filed. No explanation as to what caused the glitch though. \n\nrovitm So I referred my wife to the XXXX XXXX. I used the referral link on Amex.com. My wife applied, was approved and met the XXXX spend. She was denied the bonus. We put in an investigation and was denied. They said they will put in another investigation. I called and spoke to a supervisor. She said the regular and business SPG card are considered the same and that she is not entitled to the bonus. She said on some cards and especially with the Platinum they are considered different products, but for this offer it is not. Has anyone been told this before? I assume many here have used the referral links on XXXX and have not had a problem. I think I will wait a few days and call again. Any suggestions are appreciated. \n\nencin Just followed up with amex on my missing spg biz points from when I met min spend on XXXX for the XXXX offer. This is the second case I opened with them, they decided to just close the first case with no apparent action. \nThe CSR just mentioned that the second case which I opened on XXXX was closed on XXXX, and apparently they confirmed a glitch on their end that did n't properly attach the sign-up promotion code to my account. They verified that I do qualify and that I should be receiving the points, but did n't get give a timeline. I think he mentioned something about this being remediated in a batch or something ... .last time I called I got them to give me XXXX courtesy points for all the calls I put in the last few months ... .. \nI had called so many times, and I was really upset they had closed the previous case I created 8 weeks before with no resolution and she just said she had to create a new case and it would be another 6-8 weeks. I was like how do I know they are n't just going to close this in two weeks and keep telling me the same bs and I demanded something in return. I was hoping for more points but settled for XXXX - she was n't willing to negotiate there mwwalk My wife got the XXXX business back when it was available for XXXX points. We hit the spend immediately and then never received any of the signup bonus points. In XXXX I chatted and they could see the points had not posted despite completing spend so they opened a ticket. I chatted again ever couple weeks and they could never do anything and were really annoying ( and lazy ). Today, the bonus points finally posted. Thank goodness. For those that will want to know, they never called or emailed to ask questions. A significant portion of the $ XXXX MSR was done with MS , probably about 65 % of it. But none of it at Level 3 data supplying stores and I put in a bunch of other smaller charges as well - genuinely used it for everyday spend except meals/travel. Several charges were {$500.00} from XXXX because I got lazy so it would be pretty obvious what they were, but did n't seem to matter. Yay! If you 're still waiting, have hope. \n\nnetscooby I had signed up for the XXXX XXXX card with the XXXX bonus. After meeting the XXXX spend back in early XXXX with no MS and never having the card, I never received the bonus, not even the XXXX for the XXXX spend. A couple support calls and they finally sent my case to the mysterious back office a couple weeks ago. Follow up today and they stated that I 'm still good and do qualify, but this is a \" Known issue '' for this card. \nAnyone else experiencing this? I would think there would be others experiencing the same thing if this was truly a known issue they are having. \n\nreachforthemiles Yes, there 's many people in the same situation, myself included. Over five calls now with the same answer \" It 's Amex 's fault and we 've opened a case, we 're working on it! \". But never any resolution. The travelcodex link that XXXX [ +4 ] mentioned has additional people in the same situation. \n\nXXXX XXXX : It is known that there was a glitch attaching signup bonuses to applications for the XXXX cards, but I 'm speculating that it may have affected additional product lines during the same time period. The timeframe of the glitch appears to be approximately XXXX XXXX - XXXX XXXX. ( Please provide any DPs to prove me wrong/right. ) Evidence : 1 ) My XXXX application was XXXX and bonus has n't posted after 8 weeks. I opened an AmEx investigation and CFPB case and response so far is : \" We have identified an issue which, regrettably, may have impacted your account. '' 2 )  XXXX is waiting on a XXXX bonus from first week of XXXX. \n3 ) XXXX had trouble getting a XXXX bonus to post. Not sure of his application date, but possibly around then. \n4 ) Users XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX on the Travel Codex post are reporting issues from around that time frame on the XXXX Surpass upgrade offer ( I know it 's an upgrade offer, but still maybe related ). \n5 ) Maybe unrelated, but XXXX is missing XXXX XXXX bonus. Do n't know application date, but similar time frame. \n6 ) Obviously many DPs on SPG offer and time frame is at least XXXX XXXX - XXXX XXXX. My application was XXXX XXXX, XXXX was XXXX XXXX, XXXX was XXXX XXXX, XXXX [ +4 ] was XXXX XXXX, and XXXX [ +2 ] was XXXX XXXX. \n7 ) Since the XXXX higher bonuses ended XXXX and many people applied in the final days, we are mostly seeing SPG missing, but I theorize that is just selection bias and the glitch affects other product lines too. \n\nnigson Affected timeline dp : Got my biz SPG XXXX and was waiting quite a while for the bonus to post. Still waiting for it on the SPG website, but at least it 's there in the Amex side. My personal XXXX applied XXXX ( approved XXXX ) bonus posted on time automatically. \nXXXX Add me in as a DP : Applied and approved on XXXX for biz SPG. Hit {$5000.00} + {$3000.00} in XXXX statement. No bonus, and nothing posted in Amex. Chatted and spoke with CSRs that confirmed I passed the threshold, no discussion of any sort of technical glitch. \nXXXX I opened my business spg on XXXX and had problems with the bonus posting. I hit {$5000.00} within the first statement. My XXXX points did not post until about 2 weeks ago.","date_sent_to_company":"2017-11-18T06:55:56.000Z","issue":"Advertising and marketing, including promotional offers","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"53705","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"2732780","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY","date_received":"2017-11-18T01:44:18.000Z","state":"WI","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Didn't receive advertised or promotional terms"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["No explanation as to <em>what</em> caused the glitch though. \n\nrovitm So I referred my wife to the XXXX XXXX. I used the referral link on Amex.com. My wife applied, was approved and met the XXXX spend. She was denied the bonus. We put in an <em>investigation</em> and was denied. They said they will put in another <em>investigation</em>. I called and spoke to a supervisor. She said the regular and business SPG card are considered the same and that she is not entitled to the bonus."]},"sort":[6.552971,"2732780"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14476796","_score":6.5087066,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"This complaint is a formal challenge to Equifaxs ongoing failure to reasonably reinvestigate and correct the inaccurate reporting of my XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX credit card accounts. I am not disputing the existence of these accounts, but rather challenging the following : False and Unverifiable Ownership Claims Improper Billing After Account Closure Deceptive Settlement Practices Misreporting of Payment Activity Failure to Verify Information with Competent Evidence Refusal to Correct or Delete Unverifiable Data Supporting evidence previously submitted in full. This complaint includes only updated investigation results, creditor letters, and SEC ownership documents to avoid duplication. \n\nThe issues outlined in this challenge apply to all three reinvestigation attempts, as they reflect a systemic failure by Equifax to conduct a good faith and meaningful investigation in accordance with FCRA 611 ( a ) and Metro 2 compliance standards.\n\nThe sections that follow will outline specific discrepancies, timeline contradictions, ownership concerns, and regulatory violations supporting my request for full deletion or immediate correction of both accounts.\n\n1. Unverifiable Ownership Supported by SEC Filings ( EX-10.2 ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is not the legal owner of the debts associated with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX accounts. As shown in the attached Amended and Restated Receivables Sales Agreement ( EX-10.2 ) between XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( a subsidiary of XXXX XXXX XXXX ) : Bank hereby agrees to sell, transfer, assign, set-over, and otherwise convey to Receivables Purchaser, without recourse one hundred percent ( 100 % ) of the Receivables generated by Bank EX-10.2, Section 2 ( a ) This agreement confirms : 100 % of credit card receivables are sold by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX \nThe sale is without recourse and structured as a true sale, not a secured loan. \nThe Bank retains only servicing duties, not ownership. \nAs a result, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX lack legal standing to furnish tradeline data or pursue settlement collection after sale. Therefore, XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX as brands under this structure are not legally reporting with verified ownership authority. Any credit reporting after the transfer constitutes a violation of the FCRA and must be corrected. \n\nXXXX. Illegally Billing After Account Closure Contradictory letters and billing statements reveal that both XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX continued to charge fees and send billing statements for months after the accounts were officially closed. This is deceptive and violates federal consumer protection standards, including the Credit CARD Act and FCRA. \nXXXX XXXX Account closed on XX/XX/XXXX, per creditor response letters. \nDespite this, XXXX XXXX continued billing late fees through at least XX/XX/XXXX, disguised as settlement activity. \nTheir XX/XX/XXXX, letter explicitly admits : The fees continued to bill on the unpaid balance correctly.This is legally questionable. Once the account is closed and restricted, the creditor should not be billing additional monthly fees unless expressly permitted in a settlement contractwhich they refused to provide. \nKey Timeline & Amounts : XX/XX/XXXX email : Account balance stated as {$390.00} XX/XX/XXXX email : Account balance increased to {$430.00} a {$41.00} increase in under 3 weeks without explanation XX/XX/XXXX : I paid a total of {$400.00} Remaining amount due ( based on {$430.00} ) : {$34.00}, or at most {$75.00} if you consider the higher balance Despite this, I made additional payments : {$41.00} on XX/XX/XXXX {$50.00} on XX/XX/XXXX Yet on XX/XX/XXXX, I received another email stating I owed {$100.00}, with {$73.00} due to bring the account current XX/XX/XXXX email : Claimed account was past due {$150.00} XXXX paid {$120.00} over the {$75.00} potentially remainingyet continued receiving emails stating I was past due and being forced into an unverifiable settlement arrangement with no written terms, no proof of what the fees represented, and no disclosure of why my balance continued increasing. \nSummary : I made four post-closure payments, totaling {$520.00}, on an account they admitted was closed. The additional billing was deceptive, lacked transparency, and had no legal or contractual justification. \nXXXX XXXX Account closed on XX/XX/XXXX, per creditor response letters. \nYet XXXX XXXX also continued charging fees and requiring payments through XX/XX/XXXX, with the same vague language as XXXX XXXX. \nIn the XX/XX/XXXX, letter, they stated the account continued to bill on the unpaid balance correctly after closuredespite no legal or contractual authority to do so. \nKey Timeline & Amounts : XX/XX/XXXX email : Balance stated as {$440.00} XX/XX/XXXX email : Balance increased to {$450.00} XX/XX/XXXX : I paid {$400.00} Remaining amount should have been no more than {$54.00} {$50.00} payment on XX/XX/XXXX made under pressure from phone agents claiming fees would continue even though the account was closed Yet : XX/XX/XXXX email : Balance claimed was {$160.00}, with {$110.00} due XX/XX/XXXX email : Account reported as {$200.00} past due In total, I paid {$450.00} after closure on an account that XXXX only had a {$54.00} balance. There was no explanation for how balances increased to over {$200.00} after closure. I received monthly billing statements for 7 consecutive months with no activity, and againwas never provided with written settlement terms despite multiple requests. \n\nLegal Concern According to federal billing standards and the Credit CARD Act, once a credit card account is closed and restricted : No further interest or fees should accrue unless transparently disclosed Creditors can not bill as if the account is still open without violating consumer rights Neither XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX met these standards. They failed to explain what fees were being charged, how balances increased post-closure, or why settlement terms could not be documented. This pattern of ongoing billing on closed accounts, paired with refusal to provide settlement confirmation, constitutes deceptive, unfair, and abusive practices under UDAAP, the FCRA, and the CARD Act. \n\n3. Contradictory Statements by Furnishers The written responses provided by Total Visa and First Access Visa contain multiple contradictions, making it clear that the information reported to Equifax was not only unverifiable but based on inconsistent and unreliable records. These contradictions reinforce the conclusion that Equifax failed to properly investigate under the FCRA.\n\n1. Payment Denial vs. ConfirmationIn the CFPB responses dated XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX claimed that only a {$55.00} payment had been received, and XXXX XXXX  claimed only a {$54.00} payment had been received. However, in subsequent responses dated XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, both furnishers confirmed that all payments from XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX had been received and properly posted. These are the exact payments I referenced in my initial disputes, including the {$300.00} and {$100.00} payments made in XX/XX/XXXX, that they also stated to have never received. \n\nThis directly contradicts their earlier denial of those same payments and clearly demonstrates that their recordkeeping is flawed, and their credit reporting can not be relied upon. Equifaxs decision to mark these tradelines as verified based on such conflicting information shows a failure to review or assess the accuracy of the evidence provided by the furnishers. \n\n2. Post-Closure Billing In multiple lettersincluding the XX/XX/XXXX responsesboth furnishers acknowledge that the accounts were closed due to delinquency in XX/XX/XXXX ( XXXX XXXX ) and XX/XX/XXXX ( XXXX XXXX ). Despite this, both companies continued to bill fees and send monthly statements well into XX/XX/XXXX. This contradicts their own closure dates and suggests that they improperly treated the accounts as active long after they were legally closed and restricted. The billing of late fees and continued monthly updates during this period is misleading, unlawful, and unsupported by any transparent contractual basis. \n\n3. Settlement Completed After Closure In the XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX letter, the creditor states that the settlement was completed on XX/XX/XXXX. However, they had already confirmed that the account was closed on XX/XX/XXXX. This means they continued billing, collecting, and reporting the account for over seven months after it was no longer open. This timeline is inherently contradictoryan account can not simultaneously be closed and restricted and active and accruing fees toward a settlement. These contradictions show that no accurate or consistent account history exists.\n\n4. Claims of Original Creditor StatusNeither First Access nor XXXX XXXX clearly identify XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX as the original creditor in their CFPB responses. Instead, they repeatedly state that no third party is involved, which is false and misleading by omission. This omission is significant, because it misrepresents the true ownership structure of the accounts and conceals the securitization and sale of the receivables. \nSEC-filed documentationspecifically the Amended and Restated Receivables Sales Agreement ( EX-10.2 ) proves that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  sells 100 % of its receivables ( credit card debt ) to XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX subsidiary of XXXX XXXX XXXX, without recourse . The agreement states : Bank hereby agrees to sell, transfer, assign, set-over, and otherwise convey to Receivables Purchaser, without recourse one hundred percent ( 100 % ) of the Receivables generated by Bank EX-10.2 , Section 2 ( a ) This confirms that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  does not retain ownership of the accounts and has no legal standing to furnish derogatory tradelines or collect post-sale. Its role is limited to servicing. Therefore, by failing to acknowledge the role of XXXX or XXXX, and by denying any third-party involvement, the furnishers have provided materially false and misleading information. \nThis misrepresentation of ownership and reporting authority directly violates the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and undermines the legal basis for Equifaxs verification of these tradelines. \n\nWhy These Contradictions Are Legally Significant and Undermine Verification Each of the contradictions outlined above represents a direct violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and the Credit Reporting Agencies ' duty to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of consumer credit information. According to FCRA 611 ( a ), Equifax is legally obligated to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation of any disputed account. That includes evaluating whether the information furnished is consistent, supported by documentation, and based on accurate account records. None of those conditions were met here. \nThe payment denial vs. confirmation issue proves that furnishers initially misrepresented the facts of payment history. This means material account data was falseyet Equifax still marked the information as verified, despite having my bank records and the creditors later confirmations that all payments were received. \nThe post-closure billing contradiction shows that both furnishers treated the accounts as active months after closure, billing fees and updating balances. This is not just misleadingit is illegal under federal law, including the Credit CARD Act, which restricts new charges or fees after closure unless properly disclosed and contractually agreed. Equifax 's failure to question or investigate this ongoing billing activity on closed accounts shows gross negligence in their reinvestigation. \nThe settlement completion after account closure contradiction makes clear that the furnishers were applying settlement terms to accounts that were no longer legally collectible in the same way. The fact that balances were still increasing and being reported as past due months after closure, without written settlement documentation, renders the reporting inherently unverifiable. \nThe claim that no third party was involved, despite clear evidence from SEC documents that all receivables were sold to a third-party entity ( XXXX XXXX ), represents an intentional concealment of the actual creditor structure. This omission invalidates any claim that the furnishersor XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ongoing legal authority to report or collect on the debt. The FCRA requires accurate reporting of both account status and ownership, and Equifax had a duty to investigate the ownership when I provided this documentation. \nGiven these contradictions, Equifax could not have reasonably verified the accuracy of these accounts without either ignoring or disregarding the conflicting evidence and lack of supporting documentation. Therefore, Equifax is in violation of FCRA 611, and the continued reporting of these tradelines is unlawful. These accounts must be corrected to reflect their true post-settlement statusor deleted entirely as unverifiable, misleading, and harmful to the consumer. \n\n\nEquifax Continued Reporting After Account Closure Violates FCRA Accuracy Requirements Both the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  accounts were formally closed in XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, respectively. This is not speculativeit is clearly documented within Equifaxs own credit report entries, which list the closure months explicitly. \nDespite this, Equifax continued to allow furnishers to report balances, delinquencies, and settlement activity on these closed accounts well into XXXX, with past due statuses and payment updates reflected through XX/XX/XXXX. \nMost egregiously, Equifax allowed : Past due balances to be reported in months when the accounts were already closed Monthly activity updates for accounts with no legitimate post-closure usage Settlement remarks and delinquency notations based on unverifiable, post-closure charges Ongoing tradeline updates without properly marking the accounts as Closed To date, Equifax has still failed to notate either account as Closed, which creates the false impression that these are active or collectible debts. This is inaccurate and harmful, and it directly contradicts the closure information Equifax already had on file. \nNothing should be reported on a closed accountespecially not delinquency notations or continued balance updates. Once an account is closed and restricted, it must reflect only its final resolved status. \nViolation of FCRA 607 ( b ) Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, Equifax is legally obligated to : Follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom the report relates.FCRA 607 ( b ) That obligation does not permit blind reliance on furnishers, especially when : The account is documented as closed No purchases or charges occurred post-closure No written settlement documentation exists The consumer has provided contradictory evidence showing overpayment and incorrect balances By continuing to report : Post-closure delinquency and balance activity Settled status based on no formal agreement Past due amounts for periods when accounts were not even legally billable Equifax affirmatively misrepresented the nature, status, and accuracy of both accounts. \nCRA Liability Is Independent of the Furnisher Even if a furnisher continues sending data after closure, Equifax is not absolved of its responsibility under the FCRA. Regulatory guidance and case law are clear : a credit reporting agency must : Independently assess whether the data is internally consistent, Confirm that it is factually supported, And determine whether it is legally reportable. \nIn this case, none of that occurred. Equifax ignored the closure dates, overpayment evidence, and contradictory furnisher statements, and chose to continue publishing derogatory data on two accounts that should have been resolved or removed. \nConclusion Equifaxs decision to continue reporting both accounts well into XXXX, while knowing they were closed in XXXX, is a clear violation of FCRA 607 ( b ). It contradicts their own records, fails to meet basic verification standards, and further confirms that the accounts are inaccurate, unverifiable, and legally reportable only if corrected or deleted entirely. \n\n\nEquifaxs Verification Failure Despite receiving this supporting documentation, Equifax : Failed to reconcile the true account balances with the payments made Did not obtain or request any written settlement agreement to justify the settled for less remark Ignored clear evidence that I paid more than what was owed at closure This remark was accepted from the furnisher without verification, despite the fact that the furnishers themselves admitted in their XX/XX/XXXX letters that no settlement letter could be located. \nIn the XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX letter, they stated : Your request for a copy of the letter confirming the settlement terms was reviewed. We do not locate a letter regarding a settlement offer dated XXXX. \nSo how was Equifax able to verify a settlement occurred, let alone claim it was settled for less, if the creditor couldnt even produce documentation to support it? \nViolation of FCRA and Metro 2 Guidelines Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and Metro 2 industry standards, Equifax is not permitted to : Rely solely on furnisher data that is contradicted by consumer evidence Report settled for less status without written, verifiable settlement terms Ignore overpayment evidence and knowingly furnish inaccurate derogatory remarks This conduct violates : FCRA 607 ( b ) failure to ensure accuracy FCRA 611 ( a ) failure to reinvestigate properly Metro 2 guidelines prohibition on reporting settlement status without documentation 4. Failure to Provide Settlement Letter Despite confirming that I was enrolled in a settlement arrangement, neither Total Visa nor First Access Visa ever provided a written agreement outlining the settlement terms, payment schedule, or total payoff amount. Instead, they both stated that a settlement letter would only be issued after all payments had been madeleaving me with no written confirmation during the active settlement period. \n\nThis was not a one-time miscommunication. I received multiple settlement offer emails over several months, and I accepted the initial offer because the furnishers kept billing fees on a closed account and refused to stop unless a settlement was reached. However, even after I accepted that first settlement offer, I continued receiving new settlement emails each month with different amounts and terms. \n\nWhen I contacted their customer service to ask why settlement offers continued arriving after I had already accepted one, I was told they had no record of ever sending a settlement offer at all. This was deeply concerning. Their denial of the very email offers I received ( and accepted ) led me to request formal documentation proving I was enrolled in a settlement but they repeatedly refused to provide it, as clearly shown in their CFPB response letters. \n\nFrom XXXX XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ) : The agent informed you a letter would be sent upon completion of the last settlement payment and to call to confirm it was completed. \nThis left me without any settlement letter during the full payment period meaning I had no protection if the terms changed or if they later misapplied payments. \n\nFrom XXXX XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ) : Only one payment of {$54.00} has been received for the settlement... In the absence of any evidence of error in our reporting of the account, we are unable to fulfill the request to remove the account from the credit bureau reports. \nThis statement dismisses the multiple payments I made and my proof of those payments and relies on the existence of a settlement they simultaneously deny ever offering or documenting. \n\nFrom XXXX XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ) : We did not locate a copy of a letter confirming the settlement offer you referenced. \nThis contradicts their earlier acknowledgment that I was in a settlement and further demonstrates their internal records are incomplete, inconsistent, or deliberately withheld. \n\nFrom XXXX XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ) : On XX/XX/XXXX, you agreed to pay the account for less than the balance and agreed to the amount of {$100.00} ... On XX/XX/XXXX, the settlement was completed, and the remaining balance was written off. \nDespite this acknowledgment of a settlement arrangement and completion, no letter was ever issued confirming the agreed terms, and my repeated requests were either ignored or dismissed. I completed all settlement payments by XX/XX/XXXX, and still received no documentation to reflect this. \n\nFrom XXXX XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ) : Your request for a copy of the letter confirming the settlement terms was reviewed. We do not locate a letter regarding a settlement offer dated XX/XX/XXXX. \nThis is particularly alarming because my payments were made based on that exact offer. Their denial of the agreements existence after accepting the payments reveals a serious procedural flaw or intentional deception. \n\nWhy This Is Deceptive and Legally Problematic The repeated refusal to provide written confirmation of a settlementwhile continuing to bill on a closed account, furnish negative credit data, and send conflicting settlement offersdemonstrates a pattern of deceptive and abusive conduct. \nThis prevented me from : Validating the terms of my agreement Disputing errors with supporting documentation Confirming completion of my obligations Protecting myself from ongoing derogatory credit reporting This conduct violates FCRA, FDCPA, and UDAAP standards by denying me the transparency and documentation I needed to resolve the account. Worse, Equifax relied on the furnishers undocumented claims to continue verifying negative tradeline data. \nA valid settlement agreement must be documented. If the furnishers can not or will not produce such documentation, the credit reporting must be considered unverifiable and deleted. \n\n5. Equifaxs Violations of FCRA Equifax failed to meet its duty under FCRA 611 to : Conduct a reasonable reinvestigation Provide a description of the process Verify the data using competent evidence Delete unverifiable information if the furnisher can not confirm ownership and accuracy Instead, Equifax relied on data furnishers who issued inconsistent, incomplete, and contradictory responses. \n\nWhy Equifax 's Verification Was Inadequate and Legally Deficient Despite my submission of clear, documented contradictions and errors, Equifax closed my disputes with claims that no changes were needed or that the items had been verified. This position is not only unsupported by the evidenceit also violates the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA 611 ) and industry standards under Metro 2 guidelines, which require credit reporting agencies to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of the data they report. \nKey Errors in XXXX Verification : 1. {$400.00} XX/XX/XXXX Payment Not Reflected on Either Account I made {$400.00} in total payments across these two accounts in XX/XX/XXXX. \nThese payments are missing from both tradelines in Equifaxs updated investigation results. \nThe account histories fail to reflect these payments, and there is no update showing a balance reduction, paid status, or accurate application of payments in XXXX. \n\nIf Equifax had truly verified this information with the original furnisher, these XX/XX/XXXX payments would have been included in the payment history. \n\n2. Continued Reporting of Scheduled Payments and Past Due Balances AFTER Account Closure The XXXX XXXX  account was closed in XX/XX/XXXX, and XXXX XXXX was closed in XX/XX/XXXX. \nYet Equifax continues to report scheduled payments, due dates, and past due balances well into XXXX for both accounts. \nFor example, both reports show activity dated through XX/XX/XXXX, which is 78 months after the official account closure. \n\nAccording to Metro 2 reporting standards and FCRA 607 ( b ), no payment activity should appear after the closure date, and no pay status should be reported as Pay As Agreed on a closed account. \n\nXXXX. Equifax Contradicts Its Own Data Equifaxs investigation results confirm the accounts were closed in late XXXX, yet the updated reports include : Scheduled Payment Amounts of {$41.00} each Next Payment Due Dates of XX/XX/XXXX Pay Status as Pay As Agreed instead of Paid/Closed or Closed/Paid Settled This is internally contradictory : Equifax acknowledges the closure date, but still reports the accounts as active and delinquent into XXXX. \n\n4. No Explanation or Verification Details Provided Under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ), Equifax is required to provide : A description of the reinvestigation process ; The name and contact details of the furnisher ; And the documentation used to verify the disputed information. \n\nEquifaxs response included none of this information and simply stated the item was updated without showing any substantive correction or reconciliation with the actual payment history I provided. \n\nThese summaries confirm that Equifax knowingly accepted and reported post-closure payment activity as settlement payments without requiring proper validation or documentation of the settlement agreements. This is not just carelessit contradicts the FCRAs requirement that data must be verifiable and accurate. \nThe Legal Issues : 1. No Settlement Letter ExistsBoth furnishers refused to provide documentation proving I was under an official settlement arrangement. Without such documentation, Equifax had no legal or factual basis to verify settled for less status or any associated payment updates. Per FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ), CRAs must conduct a reasonable reinvestigation to determine whether the disputed information is inaccurate.\n\n2. Account Status vs. Payment Dates ConflictBoth accounts were closed in late XXXX, yet Equifax shows last payments received in XX/XX/XXXX. This proves that Equifax accepted ongoing reporting activity on closed accounts, which is a major compliance issue. No explanation was provided as to how payments made 67 months post-closure could lawfully update a closed tradelineespecially without proof of a settlement contract. \n3. Furnisher Contradictions Were IgnoredThe same furnishers that Equifax relied on to verify these accounts issued multiple CFPB responses that contradict themselves on key points, including : Payment amounts and dates Whether a settlement was ever offered Whether third parties were involved Whether accounts were still being billed post-closure 4. Equifax ignored these contradictions entirely and provided no statement of how they resolved these conflicts before declaring the tradelines verified. \n5. Equifaxs Dispute Results Do Not Satisfy FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 7 ) I was never provided with : A description of how the reinvestigation was conducted The name, address, and documentation relied on from the furnisher Any explanation of how contradictory or missing information was reconciled Legal Grounds for Immediate Removal Based on the documented record of contradictions, misrepresentations, and Equifaxs failure to lawfully reinvestigate or validate the disputed information, the continued reporting of these XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX tradelines is a clear violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). Since XXXX, I have consistently provided accurate and detailed documentationincluding payment confirmations, closure notices, and regulatory filingsthat directly refute the furnishers claims. \n\nDespite this, Equifax has willfully ignored the facts and maintained inaccurate, misleading, and incomplete tradelines, acting in partnership with the furnishers to suppress necessary corrections that would reflect my true credit history. This conduct violates : FCRA 611 ( a ) for failure to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation, FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) for failure to delete or correct information that can not be verified, FCRA 607 ( b ) for failure to ensure maximum possible accuracy in consumer reports, And violates the principles of Metro 2 compliance and the CFPBs guidance on dispute resolution and data accuracy obligations. \n\nGiven the overwhelming evidence that : The furnishers statements are internally inconsistent, The accounts were closed months prior to the reported payment activity, And payments were initially denied, then later acknowledged by the furnisher. \n\nEquifax had no legal or factual basis to validate or continue reporting these accounts as accurate or verifiable. \n\nAccordingly, I demand the immediate and permanent deletion of both tradelines from my Equifax credit file and request that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau hold Equifax accountable for its failure to protect consumers from inaccurate and unverifiable credit reporting in violation of federal law.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-07-06T22:33:30.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"483XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14476796","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-07-06T22:20:30.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This complaint includes only updated <em>investigation</em> results, creditor letters, and SEC ownership documents to avoid duplication. \n\nThe issues outlined in this challenge <em>apply</em> to all three reinvestigation attempts, as they reflect a systemic failure by Equifax to conduct a good faith and meaningful <em>investigation</em> in accordance with FCRA 611 ( a ) and Metro 2 compliance standards."],"issue":["Problem with a company's <em>investigation</em> into an existing problem"],"sub_issue":["Their <em>investigation</em> did not fix an error on your report"]},"sort":[6.5087066,"14476796"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"12769507","_score":6.4366684,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"DEMAND LETTER XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX VIA CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED & EMAIL JPMorgan Chase Bank , N.A . \nLegal Department / Office of the President [ Insert Appropriate Chase Legal/Executive Office Address ] Email : XXXX ( Executive Office email provided in call transcript ) **Subject : IMMEDIATE DEMAND FOR RESOLUTION AND COMPENSATION : Violations of Fair Credit Reporting Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq. ) and Georgia Fair Business Practices Act ( O.C.G.A. 10-1-390 et seq. ) XXXX XXXX Related to Accounts XXXX ( Sapphire ), XXXX ( Fraudulent ), XXXX ( Fraudulent/Amazon ), and Associated Identity Theft Matters Dear JPMorgan Chase Bank , N.A . Legal Department / Executive Office : This letter serves as a formal, pre-litigation demand for significant compensation and complete resolution stemming from JPMorgan Chase Bank , N.A . 's ( \" Chase '' ) egregious violations of federal and state law. Specifically, Chase has demonstrably failed in its duties as a furnisher of information under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq., and has engaged in unfair and deceptive practices prohibited by the Georgia Fair Business Practices Act ( FBPA ), O.C.G.A. 10-1-390 et seq. \n\nThe Supreme Court has recognized that the FCRA \" was crafted to protect consumers from the transmission of inaccurate information about them. '' XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX ). As the Eleventh Circuit has emphasized, the FCRA imposes \" a duty to conduct a reasonable investigation '' that \" is not a mere procedural formality, but rather contemplates a substantive inquiry. '' XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ). Chase 's actions have fallen dramatically short of these standards. \n\nChase 's unreasonable investigation procedures, its blatant disregard for information provided, and its subsequent mishandling of my valid and fraudulently opened accounts, all within the known context of my documented identity theft victimization, have directly caused substantial financial injury, severe credit damage quantifiable by objective metrics, and profound, documented emotional distress. My attempts to resolve this through standard channels and multiple CFPB complaints ( Ref : Complaint Nos. XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX ) have been met with inadequate, inconsistent, and ultimately unlawful responses, necessitating this demand. \n\nComprehensive Factual Background and Timeline of Chase 's Violations : The following timeline, supported by extensive documentation, underscores Chase 's systematic failures : Documented Identity Theft ( XXXX ) : Chase was aware, or reasonably should have been aware through its investigation process, that I was a verified victim of identity theft, as documented by XXXX XXXX Police Reports XXXX XXXX # XXXX, XXXX ) and my FTC Identity Theft Report ( # XXXX ), which detailed numerous fraudulent accounts, including those linked to Chase. The FTC report specifically identified a fraudulent Chase card among multiple compromised accounts, including XXXX XXXX XXXX ( {$5000.00} fraud ), XXXX XXXX XXXX ( {$3300.00} ), XXXX  ( {$2500.00} ), XXXX XXXX ( {$2500.00} ), and XXXX XXXX ( {$1500.00} ). This established a clear pattern of identity theft targeting financial institutions, placing Chase on heightened notice. Under 15 U.S.C. 1681c-2 and the FTC 's Red Flags Rule ( 16 C.F.R. 681.2 ), furnishers must consider such documentation when investigating identity theft claims and implement reasonable procedures to respond to identity theft notices. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX Fraudulent Activity & Dispute : Fraudulent Chase inquiries appeared on my credit report dated XX/XX/XXXX. These were promptly disputed with XXXX. XXXX confirmed deletion by XX/XX/XXXX ( Ref : XXXX # XXXX ), putting Chase on notice of specific fraudulent activity linked to my identity. This notice triggered Chase 's duties under 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) to implement heightened scrutiny regarding any future accounts or inquiries in my name, particularly given the documented history of identity theft. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX Legitimate Sapphire Application : I legitimately applied for and was approved for the Chase Sapphire account ending XXXX ( \" Sapphire Account '' ). This application was made with my authentic personal information, from my verified address, and using my legitimate contact informationall distinguishable from the fraudulent patterns documented in the FTC report. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX Improper Closure of Valid Account & Confusing Communications : Shortly after approval, Chase closed the valid Sapphire Account. Chase 's rationale was inconsistent and improperly conflated this valid account with investigations into separate fraudulent accounts ( e.g., XXXX, XXXX ). This action lacked a reasonable basis specific to the Sapphire Account itself, violating the \" reasonable procedures '' requirement of 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A ). \n\nThe closure letter dated XX/XX/XXXX, referenced account ending XXXX ( the XXXX account ), stating closure was due to \" fraud claim history/patterns. '' This demonstrates Chase 's internal confusion and improper linkage between distinct accounts. The letter failed to provide clear, specific information about the Sapphire account ( XXXX ), violating the adverse action notice requirements under both FCRA and Regulation B ( 12 C.F.R. 1002.9 ). \n\nXX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Futile Attempts at Resolution : I endured months of frustrating interactions with Chase representatives ( Ref : Call Transcripts XXXX, XXXX, XXXX ), totaling over 15 hours of documented phone conversations. These transcripts reveal : Chase representatives provided contradictory information about the reason for closure ( bank policy vs. fraud linkage ) Supervisors acknowledged confusion between the legitimate Sapphire account ( XXXX ) and fraudulent accounts ( XXXX ) Chase failed to properly escalate the matter despite clear evidence of their error Representatives directed me to the XXXX, XXXX  address and executive office contacts, yet these escalation attempts yielded no resolution This pattern of conduct violates the \" reasonable investigation '' standard established in XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) and adopted by the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ). The call transcripts demonstrate Chase 's failure to implement proper procedures for handling complex identity theft situations, contrary to the requirements of the FTC 's Furnisher Rule, 16 C.F.R. 660.4. \n\nXXXX XXXX Chase 's Misuse of Consumer Statement : After initiating the flawed closure process based on its internal errors, Chase seized upon a statement I made in a CFPB complaint ( filed XX/XX/XXXX - # XXXX ) amidst the confusion Chase created, using it as a post-hoc justification for accepting the Sapphire account as fraudulent ( Ref : Chase Response to CFPB ; Call Transcript XXXX pt XXXX clarifying my intent ). \n\nThe call transcript from XXXX explicitly documents my clarification that the statement was made during a period of extreme confusion created by Chase 's contradictory communications. This occurred even as I was actively trying to correct Chase 's misunderstanding directly ( Ref : Calls surrounding XX/XX/XXXX ). Such selective consideration of evidence violates the \" reasonable investigation '' standard articulated in XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) ( furnisher must consider \" all relevant information '' provided by consumer ). \n\nOngoing Harm : The improper closure and associated negative, albeit eventually corrected, reporting resulted in a quantifiable credit score drop ( nearly XXXX points ), impaired my ability to secure funding, caused significant financial strain ( affecting ability to provide for my family ), and inflicted severe, ongoing emotional distress. Courts have consistently recognized such harms as compensable under the FCRA. See XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) ( recognizing \" mental distress '' as actual damages under FCRA ). \n\nDetailed Legal Violations by Chase : 1. Violation of FCRA 1681s-2 ( b ) Duty to Conduct a Reasonable Investigation : As a furnisher, upon receiving a notice of dispute regarding the accuracy of information provided to CRAs, Chase has a statutory duty to conduct a prompt and reasonable investigation. 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) ( 1 ). This duty requires more than a cursory or superficial review ; it mandates consideration of all relevant information available, including information provided by the consumer. See XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) ( emphasizing that the investigation must be reasonable under the circumstances ) ; XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) ( furnisher must conduct its own reasonable investigation, not just rely on CRA ). \n\nThe Eleventh Circuit has specifically held that \" a reasonable investigation ... means more than simply confirming that the challenged information is actually what the furnisher previously reported. '' XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ). Rather, it requires \" a fairly searching inquiry '' that considers the specific circumstances of each case. Id. \n\nChase breached this duty in multiple, documented ways : a ) Failure to Differentiate Between Accounts : Chase failed to differentiate the valid Sapphire Account ( XXXX ) from known fraudulent accounts ( XXXX, XXXX ) during its investigation, contrary to the requirement in XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX. XXXX ) that furnishers must \" consider the specific facts '' of each dispute. The call transcripts ( particularly XXXX ) explicitly show Chase representatives acknowledging confusion between these distinct accounts. \n\nb ) Disregard of Critical Evidence : Chase ignored or failed to reasonably weigh crucial evidence provided ( FTC Report # XXXX, XXXX XXXX Police Reports # XXXX and # XXXX, prior XXXX  deletions # XXXX ), violating the principle established in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) that a furnisher must \" evaluate the evidence '' provided by the consumer. These documents clearly established the pattern of identity theft and should have prompted heightened scrutiny to distinguish legitimate from fraudulent activity. \n\nc ) Improper Reliance on Internal Policies : Chase unreasonably relied on internal policies/fraud flags triggered by separate accounts to justify adverse action on the valid Sapphire Account, contrary to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) ( holding that reliance on internal records alone may be insufficient ). The XX/XX/XXXX closure letter explicitly references \" fraud claim history/patterns '' rather than specific issues with the Sapphire account itself. \n\nd ) Selective Use of Consumer Statements : Chase improperly relied on a single statement made under confusing circumstances ( CFPB complaint # XXXX filed XX/XX/XXXX ), while disregarding clarifications and the totality of evidence demonstrating the Sapphire Account 's validity at the time of closure. The call transcript from XXXX documents my explicit clarification of this misunderstanding. This selective approach violates the standard in XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) ( reasonableness of investigation is evaluated based on cost of verifying accuracy vs. potential harm of inaccuracy ). Given the high potential harm, Chase 's investigation was facially unreasonable. \n\ne ) Systemic Failure in Identity Theft Context : Chase demonstrated a systemic failure to implement proper procedures for handling complex identity theft situations, despite clear regulatory guidance. The FTC 's Furnisher Rule ( 16 C.F.R. 660.4 ) and Interagency Guidelines on Identity Theft ( 12 C.F.R. 222, App. J ) require furnishers to implement reasonable procedures to respond to notifications of identity theft and prevent re-reporting of fraudulent information. Chase 's handling of my case demonstrates a reckless disregard for these requirements. \n\nf ) Inconsistent Communications : The call transcripts ( XXXX, XXXX, XXXX ) document Chase representatives providing contradictory explanations for the Sapphire account closure, demonstrating the absence of a coherent, reasonable investigation process. In XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ), the court held that inconsistent explanations can be evidence of an unreasonable investigation. \n\n2. Violation of FCRA 1681i Failure to Correct or Delete Inaccurate Information : Stemming from its unreasonable investigation, Chase failed its duty under 1681i ( a ) to accurately and timely correct or delete the inaccurate information concerning the Sapphire Account reported to CRAs. Reporting the closure based on a flawed investigation constitutes furnishing inaccurate information. The eventual correction does not absolve Chase of liability for the harm caused during the period of non-compliance. See XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) ( holding that subsequent correction does not eliminate liability for the period of violation ). \n\nAs the Eleventh Circuit has held, \" a plaintiff need not show that the inaccurate information was actually used to his detriment to recover actual damages under the FCRA. '' XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ). The fact that the information was inaccurately reported is sufficient to establish a violation. \n\nThe CFPB complaint responses confirm that Chase eventually accepted both the XXXX and Sapphire accounts as fraudulent and requested deletion from CRAs. However, this belated correction came only after significant damage had occurred, including : a ) A documented credit score drop of nearly XXXX points b ) Inability to secure necessary funding during the critical period c ) Significant financial strain affecting my ability to meet family obligations d ) Extensive time and resources spent attempting to resolve Chase 's errors In XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ), the court recognized that even temporary inaccuracies can cause compensable harm under the FCRA. \n\nXXXX. Violation of Georgia FBPA XXXX ( a ) Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices : Chase 's actions constitute \" unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of consumer transactions, '' prohibited by O.C.G.A. XXXX ( a ). The Georgia FBPA is to be \" liberally construed and applied to promote its underlying purposes and policies, '' which include protecting consumers. O.C.G.A. XXXX ( a ). \n\na ) Unfairness : Closing the valid Sapphire Account based on errors and causing substantial, unavoidable consumer injury ( credit damage, financial hardship, distress ) is patently unfair. Georgia courts have held that practices causing \" substantial injury to consumers which is not reasonably avoidable by consumers themselves and not outweighed by countervailing benefits '' constitute unfair practices. See XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ( XXXX ). \n\nThe call transcripts ( particularly XXXX and XXXX ) document the substantial burden placed on me as a consumer attempting to resolve Chase 's error. Despite providing all requested documentation and clarification, Chase persisted in maintaining its erroneous position until after significant harm had occurred. In XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ( XXXX ), the court recognized that forcing consumers to undertake extraordinary efforts to correct a company 's error can constitute an unfair practice. \n\nb ) Deception : Providing conflicting, vague, and inaccurate justifications for the closure ( bank policy vs. fraud linkage vs. consumer statement ) constitutes deceptive practices. See XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) ( FBPA provides broad protection against deceptive practices ). The Georgia Court of Appeals has held that \" a representation is deceptive if it has the capacity or tendency to deceive. '' XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX ). \n\nThe XX/XX/XXXX closure letter referenced account ending XXXX ( the XXXX account ) rather than the Sapphire account ( XXXX ), creating confusion about which account was being closed and why. The subsequent explanations provided in calls and CFPB responses shifted from \" bank policy '' to reliance on my own statement made during the confusion Chase created. This pattern of inconsistent, misleading communications meets the standard for deception under Georgia law. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX v. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX ) ( recognizing that misleading communications can constitute deceptive practices ). \n\n4. Willful Noncompliance with FCRA ( 15 U.S.C. 1681n ) : Chase 's conduct rises to the level of willful noncompliance, defined as acting with knowledXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX of XXXX. XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX ). The Supreme Court clarified that willfulness includes not only knowing violations but also reckless disregard of statutory duties. Id. at XXXX. Chase 's reckless disregard is evidenced by : a ) Disregard of Established Legal Requirements : Chase failed to implement procedures adequate to distinguish valid from fraudulent accounts in a known ID theft context, despite clear statutory obligations under 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) and regulatory guidance from the FTC and federal banking regulators. See XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) ( finding that disregard of \" well-established legal requirements '' can constitute willfulness ). \n\nb ) Persistence Despite Contrary Evidence : Chase persisted with adverse actions based on clearly flawed internal linkages despite receiving contradictory evidence, including the FTC Identity Theft Report ( # XXXX ), XXXX XXXX Police Reports ( # XXXX, # XXXX ), and XXXX dispute results ( # XXXX ). In XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ), the court found willfulness where a furnisher maintained its position despite being presented with clear evidence contradicting its reporting. \n\nc ) Systemic Failure in Identity Theft Handling : The call transcripts reveal Chase 's systemic failure to handle complex mixed-file/ID theft disputes reasonably, indicating a reckless disregard for the accuracy required by FCRA. See XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) ( finding willfulness where defendant 's procedures were objectively unreasonable in light of legal requirements ). \n\nd ) Post-Hoc Rationalization : Chase 's shifting justifications for the Sapphire account closure, culminating in seizing upon my statement made during the confusion Chase created, demonstrates a bad faith approach to compliance. In XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ), the court found that post-hoc rationalizations for FCRA violations can support a finding of willfulness. \n\nComprehensive Analysis of Potential Counterarguments : 1. \" We followed internal bank policy regarding fraud. '' Rebuttal : Internal policy does not preempt federal law. The FCRA mandates a reasonable investigation specific to the disputed information. A policy that leads to the closure of valid accounts based on unrelated fraud or fails to account for documented identity theft contexts is inherently unreasonable and violates FCRA 1681s-2 ( b ). \n\nMultiple courts have rejected this defense : In XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ), the court held that \" following standard procedures could still be negligent if the procedures themselves are unreasonable. '' In XXXX v. XXXX XXXX. XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ), the court rejected the argument that merely confirming information in internal records satisfied the \" reasonable investigation '' requirement. \nIn XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ), the court emphasized that \" a company 's internal procedures do not immunize it from FCRA liability. '' The documented confusion between accounts ( XXXX vs. XXXX ) in the call transcripts demonstrates that Chase 's internal policies failed to properly distinguish between legitimate and fraudulent accounts in an identity theft context. The XX/XX/XXXX closure letter referencing account XXXX rather than the Sapphire account ( XXXX ) further evidences this confusion. \n\nChase can not shield itself from liability by citing flawed internal procedures. The Eleventh Circuit has specifically held that \" a reasonable investigation is one that a reasonably prudent person would undertake under the circumstances. '' XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ). Chase 's investigation failed this standard. \n\nXXXX. \" The consumer 's own statement on XX/XX/XXXX, confirmed the Sapphire account was fraudulent. '' Rebuttal : This is a misleading post-hoc rationalization that fails for multiple legal reasons : ( 1 ) Chase 's improper closure process was already underway before this statement, as evidenced by the XX/XX/XXXX closure letter, establishing that the statement was not the actual basis for Chase 's actions. Courts have rejected such after-the-fact justifications. See XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) ( rejecting post-hoc rationalizations for FCRA violations ). \n\n( XXXX ) The statement was made amidst significant confusion created by Chase 's mishandling and inconsistent communication, as documented in the call transcripts ( XXXX, XXXX ). Under established principles of consumer protection law, statements made under circumstances of confusion or duress are not reliable bases for adverse action. See FTC v. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) ( emphasizing the importance of evaluating consumer statements in their full context ). \n\n( 3 ) FCRA requires evaluation of all relevant information ; cherry-picking one statement while ignoring prior documentation, context, and direct clarifications ( Ref : Call Transcript XXXX pt XXXX ) is unreasonable. In XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ), the court held that a furnisher must consider \" all relevant information '' provided by the consumer. \n\n( 4 ) The statement was promptly clarified once the confusion was partially resolved in executive calls, as documented in the XXXX transcript. Courts have recognized that consumers have the right to clarify ambiguous statements. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ) ( emphasizing the importance of considering consumer clarifications ). \n\nRelying on this statement as the definitive basis for closure after the fact demonstrates bad faith, which courts have found can support enhanced damages. See XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) ( affirming punitive damages where defendant acted in bad faith ). \n\nXXXX. \" We ultimately accepted the accounts as fraud and requested deletion from CRAs. '' Rebuttal : This late correction does not absolve Chase of liability for the significant damages incurred during the period of non-compliance. The unreasonable investigation and improper handling caused substantial harm ( credit score drop, emotional distress, lost opportunities ) before the eventual, delayed correction. \n\nMultiple courts have established that liability attaches for the period of the violation : In XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ), the court held that \" liability exists even if inaccuracy is eventually corrected. '' In XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ), the court recognized that damages accrue during the period of non-compliance, regardless of later correction. \nIn XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ), the court held that \" subsequent corrections do not eliminate the furnisher 's liability for the period during which the inaccurate information remained on a credit report. '' The CFPB complaint responses confirm that Chase eventually accepted both accounts as fraudulent, but only after months of improper handling and after significant harm had occurred. This belated correction actually serves as an admission that Chase 's initial investigation and handling were flawed. In XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ), the court recognized that eventual correction can serve as evidence that earlier investigations were inadequate. \n\nXXXX. \" The consumer 's claimed damages are speculative. '' Rebuttal : The damages are concrete, documented, and supported by extensive evidence, meeting the standards established in multiple precedential cases : a ) Credit Score Impact : The nearly XXXXpoint credit score drop is an objective, quantifiable metric of harm, recognized as compensable in XXXX XXXX BXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX ) ( acknowledging credit score drops as actual damages ). This drop is documented in credit reports before and after Chase 's improper actions. \n\nb ) Emotional Distress : The extensive call transcripts ( XXXX, XXXX, XXXX ) and CFPB filings document the severe emotional distress caused by Chase 's actions. Courts routinely award substantial damages for emotional distress under FCRA : In XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ), the court upheld a {$150000.00} emotional distress award under FCRA. \nIn XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ), the court affirmed significant emotional distress damages. \nIn XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX. Ky. XXXX ), the court upheld a {$250000.00} emotional distress award. \nc ) Lost Opportunities : The inability to secure funding during the period of Chase 's non-compliance is a concrete economic harm. In XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ), the court recognized that \" loss of credit opportunities '' constitutes actual damages under the FCRA. \n\nd ) Time and Resources : The extensive time spent attempting to resolve Chase 's errors ( documented in call transcripts totaling over 15 hours ) constitutes compensable damages. In XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ), a Georgia federal court recognized that time spent attempting to resolve credit reporting errors is compensable. \n\nThe Eleventh Circuit has specifically recognized that \" a plaintiff need not show that the inaccurate information was actually used to his detriment to recover actual damages under the FCRA. '' XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ). While specific outcomes vary, the potential for significant damages based on Chase 's conduct is well-established in case law. \n\nXXXX. \" This dispute is subject to the Cardmember Agreement 's arbitration clause. '' Rebuttal : While acknowledging the arbitration clause in the Cardmember Agreement, it is a procedural mechanism, not a defense to the substantive violations outlined herein. The Supreme Court has recognized that arbitration agreements are generally enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX ). However : a ) Procedural vs. Substantive Rights : The existence of an arbitration clause does not diminish the severity of Chase 's legal violations or the compensation owed. In XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX ), the Court clarified that arbitration agreements affect the forum, not substantive rights. \n\nb ) Preparedness for Arbitration : Should Chase invoke this clause and compel arbitration, I am fully prepared to pursue these claims vigorously in that forum, seeking the same full measure of damages. Arbitrators have awarded significant damages in FCRA cases. See, e.g., XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ) ( noting arbitration awards in FCRA cases ). \n\nc ) Potential Unenforceability : Courts have invalidated arbitration clauses in certain consumer contexts where they effectively prevent vindication of statutory rights. See XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) ( acknowledging the \" effective vindication '' exception ). Given the documented pattern of Chase 's conduct, there may be grounds to challenge the enforceability of the arbitration clause in this specific context. \n\nd ) Applicability to Fraudulent Accounts : The arbitration clause may not apply to accounts that Chase has now acknowledged as fraudulent. In XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ), the court recognized limitations on the applicability of arbitration clauses to disputed accounts. \n\nXXXX. \" The consumer failed to mitigate damages. '' Rebuttal : The extensive documentation demonstrates my diligent efforts to mitigate damages through every available channel : a ) Prompt Dispute Initiation : I promptly disputed the fraudulent inquiries with XXXX ( resolved by XX/XX/XXXX, Ref : # XXXX ), demonstrating diligence in addressing identity theft issues. \n\nb ) Extensive Communication Attempts : The call transcripts ( XXXX, XXXX, XXXX ) document over 15 hours of calls attempting to resolve Chase 's errors, including escalation to supervisors and the executive office.\n\nc ) Multiple CFPB Complaints : I filed multiple CFPB complaints ( Ref : Complaint Nos. XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX ) in an effort to resolve the issues through regulatory channels. \n\nd ) Comprehensive Documentation : I provided comprehensive documentation, including the FTC Identity Theft Report ( # XXXX ) and XXXX XXXX Police Reports ( # XXXX, # XXXX ), to assist Chase in properly investigating the matter. \n\nCourts have recognized that consumers are not required to undertake extraordinary measures to mitigate damages caused by a furnisher 's FCRA violations. See XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ) ( rejecting argument that consumer failed to mitigate damages where she took reasonable steps to address the issue ). The documented efforts here far exceed what courts have considered reasonable mitigation efforts. \n\nDamages and Demand : Chase 's violations of FCRA and FBPA have directly caused : 1. Actual Economic Damages : {$85000.00} This amount encompasses : a ) Credit Score Impact : The documented XXXXpoint credit score drop has concrete economic value. In XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX  XXXX ), the court recognized that credit score drops constitute actual damages. Credit scoring experts typically value each point of a XXXX  score at approximately {$500.00} in lifetime borrowing costs, supporting a valuation of {$50000.00} for this component alone. \n\nb ) Lost Credit Opportunities : The inability to secure necessary funding during the critical period has caused cascading financial impacts. In XXXX v. XXXX XXXX. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ), the court recognized \" loss of credit opportunities '' as compensable damages. \n\nc ) Time and Resources : Over 15 hours of documented phone calls, plus time spent preparing CFPB complaints, gathering documentation, and addressing the financial fallout. In XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ), a Georgia federal court recognized that time spent attempting to resolve credit reporting errors is compensable. \n\n2. Actual Emotional Distress Damages : {$250000.00} This amount reflects the documented severity and duration of XXXX, stress, and hardship caused by Chase 's actions against a known","date_sent_to_company":"2025-04-02T07:30:08.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"30032","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"12769507","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","date_received":"2025-04-02T07:29:37.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Information belongs to someone else"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Comprehensive Factual Background and <em>Timeline</em> of Chase 's Violations : The following <em>timeline</em>, supported by extensive documentation, underscores Chase 's systematic failures : Documented Identity Theft ( XXXX ) : Chase was aware, or reasonably should have been aware through its <em>investigation</em> process, that I was a verified victim of identity theft, as documented by XXXX XXXX Police Reports XXXX XXXX # XXXX, XXXX ) and my FTC Identity Theft Report ( # XXXX ), which detailed numerous fraudulent accounts"]},"sort":[6.4366684,"12769507"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"12769504","_score":6.427943,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"DEMAND LETTER XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX VIA CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED & EMAIL JPMorgan Chase Bank , N.A . \nLegal Department / Office of the President XXXX XXXX XXXX Chase Legal/Executive Office XXXX XXXX Email : XXXX ( Executive Office email provided in call transcript ) **Subject : IMMEDIATE DEMAND FOR RESOLUTION AND COMPENSATION : Violations of Fair Credit Reporting Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq. ) and Georgia Fair Business Practices Act ( O.C.G.A. 10-1-390 et seq. ) XXXX XXXX Related to Accounts XXXX ( Sapphire ), XXXX ( Fraudulent ), XXXX ( Fraudulent/Amazon ), and Associated Identity Theft Matters Dear JPMorgan Chase Bank , N.A . Legal Department / Executive Office : This letter serves as a formal, pre-litigation demand for significant compensation and complete resolution stemming from JPMorgan Chase Bank , N.A . 's ( \" Chase '' ) egregious violations of federal and state law. Specifically, Chase has demonstrably failed in its duties as a furnisher of information under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq., and has engaged in unfair and deceptive practices prohibited by the Georgia Fair Business Practices Act ( FBPA ), O.C.G.A. 10-1-390 et seq. \n\nThe Supreme Court has recognized that the FCRA \" was crafted to protect consumers from the transmission of inaccurate information about them. '' XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX ). As the Eleventh Circuit has emphasized, the FCRA imposes \" a duty to conduct a reasonable investigation '' that \" is not a mere procedural formality, but rather contemplates a substantive inquiry. '' XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ). Chase 's actions have fallen dramatically short of these standards. \n\nChase 's unreasonable investigation procedures, its blatant disregard for information provided, and its subsequent mishandling of my valid and fraudulently opened accounts, all within the known context of my documented identity theft victimization, have directly caused substantial financial injury, severe credit damage quantifiable by objective metrics, and profound, documented emotional distress. My attempts to resolve this through standard channels and multiple CFPB complaints ( Ref : Complaint Nos. XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX ) have been met with inadequate, inconsistent, and ultimately unlawful responses, necessitating this demand. \n\nComprehensive Factual Background and Timeline of Chase 's Violations : The following timeline, supported by extensive documentation, underscores Chase 's systematic failures : Documented Identity Theft ( XXXX ) : Chase was aware, or reasonably should have been aware through its investigation process, that I was a verified victim of identity theft, as documented by XXXX XXXX Police Reports XXXX XXXX # XXXX, XXXX ) and my FTC Identity Theft Report ( # XXXX ), which detailed numerous fraudulent accounts, including those linked to Chase. The FTC report specifically identified a fraudulent Chase card among multiple compromised accounts, including XXXX XXXX XXXX ( {$5000.00} fraud ), XXXX XXXX XXXX ( {$3300.00} ), XXXX  ( {$2500.00} ), XXXX XXXX ( {$2500.00} ), and XXXX XXXX ( {$1500.00} ). This established a clear pattern of identity theft targeting financial institutions, placing Chase on heightened notice. Under 15 U.S.C. 1681c-2 and the FTC 's Red Flags Rule ( 16 C.F.R. 681.2 ), furnishers must consider such documentation when investigating identity theft claims and implement reasonable procedures to respond to identity theft notices. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX Fraudulent Activity & Dispute : Fraudulent Chase inquiries appeared on my credit report dated XX/XX/XXXX. These were promptly disputed with XXXX. XXXX confirmed deletion by XX/XX/XXXX ( Ref : XXXX # XXXX ), putting Chase on notice of specific fraudulent activity linked to my identity. This notice triggered Chase 's duties under 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) to implement heightened scrutiny regarding any future accounts or inquiries in my name, particularly given the documented history of identity theft. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX Legitimate Sapphire Application : I legitimately applied for and was approved for the Chase Sapphire account ending XXXX ( \" Sapphire Account '' ). This application was made with my authentic personal information, from my verified address, and using my legitimate contact informationall distinguishable from the fraudulent patterns documented in the FTC report. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX Improper Closure of Valid Account & Confusing Communications : Shortly after approval, Chase closed the valid Sapphire Account. Chase 's rationale was inconsistent and improperly conflated this valid account with investigations into separate fraudulent accounts ( e.g., XXXX, XXXX ). This action lacked a reasonable basis specific to the Sapphire Account itself, violating the \" reasonable procedures '' requirement of 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A ). \n\nThe closure letter dated XX/XX/XXXX, referenced account ending XXXX ( the XXXX account ), stating closure was due to \" fraud claim history/patterns. '' This demonstrates Chase 's internal confusion and improper linkage between distinct accounts. The letter failed to provide clear, specific information about the Sapphire account ( XXXX ), violating the adverse action notice requirements under both FCRA and Regulation B ( 12 C.F.R. 1002.9 ). \n\nXX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Futile Attempts at Resolution : I endured months of frustrating interactions with Chase representatives ( Ref : Call Transcripts XXXX, XXXX, XXXX ), totaling over 15 hours of documented phone conversations. These transcripts reveal : Chase representatives provided contradictory information about the reason for closure ( bank policy vs. fraud linkage ) Supervisors acknowledged confusion between the legitimate Sapphire account ( XXXX ) and fraudulent accounts ( XXXX ) Chase failed to properly escalate the matter despite clear evidence of their error Representatives directed me to the XXXX, XXXX  address and executive office contacts, yet these escalation attempts yielded no resolution This pattern of conduct violates the \" reasonable investigation '' standard established in XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) and adopted by the Eleventh Circuit in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ). The call transcripts demonstrate Chase 's failure to implement proper procedures for handling complex identity theft situations, contrary to the requirements of the FTC 's Furnisher Rule, 16 C.F.R. 660.4. \n\nXXXX XXXX Chase 's Misuse of Consumer Statement : After initiating the flawed closure process based on its internal errors, Chase seized upon a statement I made in a CFPB complaint ( filed XX/XX/XXXX - # XXXX ) amidst the confusion Chase created, using it as a post-hoc justification for accepting the Sapphire account as fraudulent ( Ref : Chase Response to CFPB ; Call Transcript XXXX pt XXXX clarifying my intent ). \n\nThe call transcript from XXXX explicitly documents my clarification that the statement was made during a period of extreme confusion created by Chase 's contradictory communications. This occurred even as I was actively trying to correct Chase 's misunderstanding directly ( Ref : Calls surrounding XX/XX/XXXX ). Such selective consideration of evidence violates the \" reasonable investigation '' standard articulated in XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) ( furnisher must consider \" all relevant information '' provided by consumer ). \n\nOngoing Harm : The improper closure and associated negative, albeit eventually corrected, reporting resulted in a quantifiable credit score drop ( nearly XXXX points ), impaired my ability to secure funding, caused significant financial strain ( affecting ability to provide for my family ), and inflicted severe, ongoing emotional distress. Courts have consistently recognized such harms as compensable under the FCRA. See XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) ( recognizing \" mental distress '' as actual damages under FCRA ). \n\nDetailed Legal Violations by Chase : 1. Violation of FCRA 1681s-2 ( b ) Duty to Conduct a Reasonable Investigation : As a furnisher, upon receiving a notice of dispute regarding the accuracy of information provided to CRAs, Chase has a statutory duty to conduct a prompt and reasonable investigation. 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) ( 1 ). This duty requires more than a cursory or superficial review ; it mandates consideration of all relevant information available, including information provided by the consumer. See XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) ( emphasizing that the investigation must be reasonable under the circumstances ) ; XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) ( furnisher must conduct its own reasonable investigation, not just rely on CRA ). \n\nThe Eleventh Circuit has specifically held that \" a reasonable investigation ... means more than simply confirming that the challenged information is actually what the furnisher previously reported. '' XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ). Rather, it requires \" a fairly searching inquiry '' that considers the specific circumstances of each case. Id. \n\nChase breached this duty in multiple, documented ways : a ) Failure to Differentiate Between Accounts : Chase failed to differentiate the valid Sapphire Account ( XXXX ) from known fraudulent accounts ( XXXX, XXXX ) during its investigation, contrary to the requirement in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) that furnishers must \" consider the specific facts '' of each dispute. The call transcripts ( particularly XXXX ) explicitly show Chase representatives acknowledging confusion between these distinct accounts. \n\nb ) Disregard of Critical Evidence : Chase ignored or failed to reasonably weigh crucial evidence provided ( FTC Report # XXXX, XXXX XXXX Police Reports # XXXX and # XXXX, prior XXXX  deletions # XXXX ), violating the principle established in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) that a furnisher must \" evaluate the evidence '' provided by the consumer. These documents clearly established the pattern of identity theft and should have prompted heightened scrutiny to distinguish legitimate from fraudulent activity. \n\nc ) Improper Reliance on Internal Policies : Chase unreasonably relied on internal policies/fraud flags triggered by separate accounts to justify adverse action on the valid Sapphire Account, contrary to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) ( holding that reliance on internal records alone may be insufficient ). The XX/XX/XXXX closure letter explicitly references \" fraud claim history/patterns '' rather than specific issues with the Sapphire account itself. \n\nd ) Selective Use of Consumer Statements : Chase improperly relied on a single statement made under confusing circumstances ( CFPB complaint # XXXX filed XX/XX/XXXX ), while disregarding clarifications and the totality of evidence demonstrating the Sapphire Account 's validity at the time of closure. The call transcript from XXXX documents my explicit clarification of this misunderstanding. This selective approach violates the standard in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) ( reasonableness of investigation is evaluated based on cost of verifying accuracy vs. potential harm of inaccuracy ). Given the high potential harm, Chase 's investigation was facially unreasonable. \n\ne ) Systemic Failure in Identity Theft Context : Chase demonstrated a systemic failure to implement proper procedures for handling complex identity theft situations, despite clear regulatory guidance. The FTC 's Furnisher Rule ( 16 C.F.R. 660.4 ) and Interagency Guidelines on Identity Theft ( 12 C.F.R. 222, App. J ) require furnishers to implement reasonable procedures to respond to notifications of identity theft and prevent re-reporting of fraudulent information. Chase 's handling of my case demonstrates a reckless disregard for these requirements. \n\nf ) Inconsistent Communications : The call transcripts ( XXXX, XXXX, XXXX ) document Chase representatives providing contradictory explanations for the Sapphire account closure, demonstrating the absence of a coherent, reasonable investigation process. In XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ), the court held that inconsistent explanations can be evidence of an unreasonable investigation. \n\n2. Violation of FCRA 1681i Failure to Correct or Delete Inaccurate Information : Stemming from its unreasonable investigation, Chase failed its duty under 1681i ( a ) to accurately and timely correct or delete the inaccurate information concerning the Sapphire Account reported to CRAs. Reporting the closure based on a flawed investigation constitutes furnishing inaccurate information. The eventual correction does not absolve Chase of liability for the harm caused during the period of non-compliance. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) ( holding that subsequent correction does not eliminate liability for the period of violation ). \n\nAs the Eleventh Circuit has held, \" a plaintiff need not show that the inaccurate information was actually used to his detriment to recover actual damages under the FCRA. '' XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ). The fact that the information was inaccurately reported is sufficient to establish a violation. \n\nThe CFPB complaint responses confirm that Chase eventually accepted both the XXXX and Sapphire accounts as fraudulent and requested deletion from CRAs. However, this belated correction came only after significant damage had occurred, including : a ) A documented credit score drop of nearly XXXX points b ) Inability to secure necessary funding during the critical period c ) Significant financial strain affecting my ability to meet family obligations d ) Extensive time and resources spent attempting to resolve Chase 's errors In XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ), the court recognized that even temporary inaccuracies can cause compensable harm under the FCRA. \n\n3. Violation of Georgia FBPA XXXX ( a ) Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices : Chase 's actions constitute \" unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of consumer transactions, '' prohibited by XXXX. XXXX ( a ). The Georgia FBPA is to be \" liberally construed and applied to promote its underlying purposes and policies, '' which include protecting consumers. O.C.G.A. XXXX ( a ). \n\na ) Unfairness : Closing the valid Sapphire Account based on errors and causing substantial, unavoidable consumer injury ( credit damage, financial hardship, distress ) is patently unfair. Georgia courts have held that practices causing \" substantial injury to consumers which is not reasonably avoidable by consumers themselves and not outweighed by countervailing benefits '' constitute unfair practices. See XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX App. XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX ). \n\nThe call transcripts ( particularly XXXX and XXXX ) document the substantial burden placed on me as a consumer attempting to resolve Chase 's error. Despite providing all requested documentation and clarification, Chase persisted in maintaining its erroneous position until after significant harm had occurred. In XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX ), the court recognized that forcing consumers to undertake extraordinary efforts to correct a company 's error can constitute an unfair practice. \n\nb ) Deception : Providing conflicting, vague, and inaccurate justifications for the closure ( bank policy vs. fraud linkage vs. consumer statement ) constitutes deceptive practices. See XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) ( FBPA provides broad protection against deceptive practices ). The Georgia Court of Appeals has held that \" a representation is deceptive if it has the capacity or tendency to deceive. '' XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX ). \n\nThe XX/XX/XXXX closure letter referenced account ending XXXX ( the XXXX account ) rather than the Sapphire account ( XXXX ), creating confusion about which account was being closed and why. The subsequent explanations provided in calls and CFPB responses shifted from \" bank policy '' to reliance on my own statement made during the confusion Chase created. This pattern of inconsistent, misleading communications meets the standard for deception under Georgia law. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX ) ( recognizing that misleading communications can constitute deceptive practices ). \n\n4. Willful Noncompliance with FCRA ( 15 U.S.C. 1681n ) : Chase 's conduct rises to the level of willful noncompliance, defined as acting with knowledge or reckless disregard of its statutory duties. XXXX XXXX. XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX ). The Supreme Court clarified that willfulness includes not only knowing violations but also reckless disregard of statutory duties. Id. at XXXX. Chase 's reckless disregard is evidenced by : a ) Disregard of Established Legal Requirements : Chase failed to implement procedures adequate to distinguish valid from fraudulent accounts in a known ID theft context, despite clear statutory obligations under 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) and regulatory guidance from the FTC and federal banking regulators. See XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( finding that disregard of \" well-established legal requirements '' can constitute willfulness ). \n\nb ) Persistence Despite Contrary Evidence : Chase persisted with adverse actions based on clearly flawed internal linkages despite receiving contradictory evidence, including the FTC Identity Theft Report ( # XXXX ), XXXX XXXX Police Reports ( # XXXX, # XXXX ), and XXXX dispute results ( # XXXX ). In XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ), the court found willfulness where a furnisher maintained its position despite being presented with clear evidence contradicting its reporting. \n\nc ) Systemic Failure in Identity Theft Handling : The call transcripts reveal Chase 's systemic failure to handle complex mixed-file/ID theft disputes reasonably, indicating a reckless disregard for the accuracy required by FCRA. See XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) ( finding willfulness where defendant 's procedures were objectively unreasonable in light of legal requirements ). \n\nd ) Post-Hoc Rationalization : Chase 's shifting justifications for the Sapphire account closure, culminating in seizing upon my statement made during the confusion Chase created, demonstrates a bad faith approach to compliance. In XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ), the court found that post-hoc rationalizations for FCRA violations can support a finding of willfulness. \n\nComprehensive Analysis of Potential Counterarguments : 1. \" We followed internal bank policy regarding fraud. '' Rebuttal : Internal policy does not preempt federal law. The FCRA mandates a reasonable investigation specific to the disputed information. A policy that leads to the closure of valid accounts based on unrelated fraud or fails to account for documented identity theft contexts is inherently unreasonable and violates FCRA 1681s-2 ( b ). \n\nMultiple courts have rejected this defense : In XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ), the court held that \" following standard procedures could still be negligent if the procedures themselves are unreasonable. '' In XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ), the court rejected the argument that merely confirming information in internal records satisfied the \" reasonable investigation '' requirement. \nIn XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ), the court emphasized that \" a company 's internal procedures do not immunize it from FCRA liability. '' The documented confusion between accounts ( XXXX vs. XXXX ) in the call transcripts demonstrates that Chase 's internal policies failed to properly distinguish between legitimate and fraudulent accounts in an identity theft context. The XX/XX/XXXX closure letter referencing account XXXX rather than the Sapphire account ( XXXX ) further evidences this confusion. \n\nChase can not shield itself from liability by citing flawed internal procedures. The Eleventh Circuit has specifically held that \" a reasonable investigation is one that a reasonably prudent person would undertake under the circumstances. '' XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ). Chase 's investigation failed this standard. \n\nXXXX. \" The consumer 's own statement on XX/XX/XXXX, confirmed the Sapphire account was fraudulent. '' Rebuttal : This is a misleading post-hoc rationalization that fails for multiple legal reasons : ( 1 ) Chase 's improper closure process was already underway before this statement, as evidenced by the XX/XX/XXXX closure letter, establishing that the statement was not the actual basis for Chase 's actions. Courts have rejected such after-the-fact justifications. See XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) ( rejecting post-hoc rationalizations for FCRA violations ). \n\n( 2 ) The statement was made amidst significant confusion created by Chase 's mishandling and inconsistent communication, as documented in the call transcripts ( XXXX, XXXX ). Under established principles of consumer protection law, statements made under circumstances of confusion or duress are not reliable bases for adverse action. See FTC v. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) ( emphasizing the importance of evaluating consumer statements in their full context ). \n\n( 3 ) FCRA requires evaluation of all relevant information ; cherry-picking one statement while ignoring prior documentation, context, and direct clarifications ( Ref : Call Transcript XXXX pt XXXX ) is unreasonable. In XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ), the court held that a furnisher must consider \" all relevant information '' provided by the consumer. \n\n( 4 ) The statement was promptly clarified once the confusion was partially resolved in executive calls, as documented in the XXXX transcript. Courts have recognized that consumers have the right to clarify ambiguous statements. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) ( emphasizing the importance of considering consumer clarifications ). \n\nRelying on this statement as the definitive basis for closure after the fact demonstrates bad faith, which courts have found can support enhanced damages. See XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) ( affirming punitive damages where defendant acted in bad faith ). \n\nXXXX. \" We ultimately accepted the accounts as fraud and requested deletion from CRAs. '' Rebuttal : This late correction does not absolve Chase of liability for the significant damages incurred during the period of non-compliance. The unreasonable investigation and improper handling caused substantial harm ( credit score drop, emotional distress, lost opportunities ) before the eventual, delayed correction. \n\nMultiple courts have established that liability attaches for the period of the violation : In XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ), the court held that \" liability exists even if inaccuracy is eventually corrected. '' In XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ), the court recognized that damages accrue during the period of non-compliance, regardless of later correction. \nIn XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ), the court held that \" subsequent corrections do not eliminate the furnisher 's liability for the period during which the inaccurate information remained on a credit report. '' The CFPB complaint responses confirm that Chase eventually accepted both accounts as fraudulent, but only after months of improper handling and after significant harm had occurred. This belated correction actually serves as an admission that Chase 's initial investigation and handling were flawed. In XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ), the court recognized that eventual correction can serve as evidence that earlier investigations were inadequate. \n\n4. \" The consumer 's claimed damages are speculative. '' Rebuttal : The damages are concrete, documented, and supported by extensive evidence, meeting the standards established in multiple precedential cases : a ) Credit Score Impact : The nearly XXXXpoint credit score drop is an objective, quantifiable metric of harm, recognized as compensable in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) ( acknowledging credit score drops as actual damages ). This drop is documented in credit reports before and after Chase 's improper actions. \n\nb ) Emotional Distress : The extensive call transcripts ( XXXX, XXXX, XXXX ) and CFPB filings document the severe emotional distress caused by Chase 's actions. Courts routinely award substantial damages for emotional distress under FCRA : In XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ), the court upheld a {$150000.00} emotional distress award under FCRA. \nIn XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ), the court affirmed significant emotional distress damages. \nIn XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ), the court upheld a {$250000.00} emotional distress award. \nc ) Lost Opportunities : The inability to secure funding during the period of Chase 's non-compliance is a concrete economic harm. In XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ), the court recognized that \" loss of credit opportunities '' constitutes actual damages under the FCRA. \n\nd ) Time and Resources : The extensive time spent attempting to resolve Chase 's errors ( documented in call transcripts totaling over 15 hours ) constitutes compensable damages. In XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ), a Georgia federal court recognized that time spent attempting to resolve credit reporting errors is compensable. \n\nThe Eleventh Circuit has specifically recognized that \" a plaintiff need not show that the inaccurate information was actually used to his detriment to recover actual damages under the FCRA. '' XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ). While specific outcomes vary, the potential for significant damages based on Chase 's conduct is well-established in case law. \n\n5. \" This dispute is subject to the Cardmember Agreement 's arbitration clause. '' Rebuttal : While acknowledging the arbitration clause in the Cardmember Agreement, it is a procedural mechanism, not a defense to the substantive violations outlined herein. The Supreme Court has recognized that arbitration agreements are generally enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX ). However : a ) Procedural vs. Substantive Rights : The existence of an arbitration clause does not diminish the severity of Chase 's legal violations or the compensation owed. In XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX ), the Court clarified that arbitration agreements affect the forum, not substantive rights. \n\nb ) Preparedness for Arbitration : Should Chase invoke this clause and compel arbitration, I am fully prepared to pursue these claims vigorously in that forum, seeking the same full measure of damages. Arbitrators have awarded significant damages in FCRA cases. See, e.g., XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) ( noting arbitration awards in FCRA cases ). \n\nc ) Potential Unenforceability : Courts have invalidated arbitration clauses in certain consumer contexts where they effectively prevent vindication of statutory rights. See XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX ) ( acknowledging the \" effective vindication '' exception ). Given the documented pattern of Chase 's conduct, there may be grounds to challenge the enforceability of the arbitration clause in this specific context. \n\nd ) Applicability to Fraudulent Accounts : The arbitration clause may not apply to accounts that Chase has now acknowledged as fraudulent. In XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ), the court recognized limitations on the applicability of arbitration clauses to disputed accounts. \n\n6. \" The consumer failed to mitigate damages. '' Rebuttal : The extensive documentation demonstrates my diligent efforts to mitigate damages through every available channel : a ) Prompt Dispute Initiation : I promptly disputed the fraudulent inquiries with XXXX ( resolved by XX/XX/XXXX, Ref : # XXXX ), demonstrating diligence in addressing identity theft issues. \n\nb ) Extensive Communication Attempts : The call transcripts ( XXXX, XXXX, XXXX ) document over 15 hours of calls attempting to resolve Chase 's errors, including escalation to supervisors and the executive office. \n\nc ) Multiple CFPB Complaints : I filed multiple CFPB complaints ( Ref : Complaint Nos. XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX ) in an effort to resolve the issues through regulatory channels. \n\nd ) Comprehensive Documentation : I provided comprehensive documentation, including the FTC Identity Theft Report ( # XXXX ) and XXXX XXXX Police Reports ( # XXXX, # XXXX ), to assist Chase in properly investigating the matter. \n\nCourts have recognized that consumers are not required to undertake extraordinary measures to mitigate damages caused by a furnisher 's FCRA violations. See XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) ( rejecting argument that consumer failed to mitigate damages where she took reasonable steps to address the issue ). The documented efforts here far exceed what courts have considered reasonable mitigation efforts. \n\nDamages and Demand : Chase 's violations of FCRA and FBPA have directly caused : 1. Actual Economic Damages : {$85000.00} This amount encompasses : a ) Credit Score Impact : The documented XXXXpoint credit score drop has concrete economic value. In XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ), the court recognized that credit score drops constitute actual damages. Credit scoring experts typically value each point of a XXXX  score at approximately {$500.00} in lifetime borrowing costs, supporting a valuation of {$50000.00} for this component alone. \n\nb ) Lost Credit Opportunities : The inability to secure necessary funding during the critical period has caused cascading financial impacts. In XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ), the court recognized \" loss of credit opportunities '' as compensable damages. \n\nc ) Time and Resources : Over 15 hours of documented phone calls, plus time spent preparing CFPB complaints, gathering documentation, and addressing the financial fallout. In XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ), a Georgia XXXX XXXX recognized that time spent attempting to resolve credit reporting errors is compensable. \n\n2. Actual Emotional Distress Damages : {$250000.00} This amount reflects the documented severity and duration of XXXX, stress, and hardship caused by Chase 's actions against a known","date_sent_to_company":"2025-04-02T07:30:13.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"30032","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"12769504","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","date_received":"2025-04-02T07:29:37.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Information belongs to someone else"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Comprehensive Factual Background and <em>Timeline</em> of Chase 's Violations : The following <em>timeline</em>, supported by extensive documentation, underscores Chase 's systematic failures : Documented Identity Theft ( XXXX ) : Chase was aware, or reasonably should have been aware through its <em>investigation</em> process, that I was a verified victim of identity theft, as documented by XXXX XXXX Police Reports XXXX XXXX # XXXX, XXXX ) and my FTC Identity Theft Report ( # XXXX ), which detailed numerous fraudulent accounts"]},"sort":[6.427943,"12769504"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"12769499","_score":6.423978,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"DEMAND LETTER XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX VIA CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED & EMAIL JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. \nLegal Department / Office of the President [ Insert Appropriate Chase Legal/Executive Office Address ] Email : XXXX ( Executive Office email provided in call transcript ) **Subject : IMMEDIATE DEMAND FOR RESOLUTION AND COMPENSATION : Violations of Fair Credit Reporting Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq. ) and Georgia Fair Business Practices Act ( O.C.G.A. 10-1-390 et seq. ) XXXX XXXX Related to Accounts XXXX ( Sapphire ), XXXX ( Fraudulent ), XXXX ( Fraudulent/XXXX ), and Associated Identity Theft Matters Dear JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A . Legal Department / Executive Office : This letter serves as a formal, pre-litigation demand for significant compensation and complete resolution stemming from JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. 's ( \" Chase '' ) egregious violations of federal and state law. Specifically, Chase has demonstrably failed in its duties as a furnisher of information under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq., and has engaged in unfair and deceptive practices prohibited by the Georgia Fair Business Practices Act ( FBPA ), O.C.G.A. 10-1-390 et seq. \n\nThe Supreme Court has recognized that the FCRA \" was crafted to protect consumers from the transmission of inaccurate information about them. '' XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX ). As the XXXX XXXX has emphasized, the FCRA imposes \" a duty to conduct a reasonable investigation '' that \" is not a mere procedural formality, but rather contemplates a substantive inquiry. '' XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ). Chase 's actions have fallen dramatically short of these standards.\n\nChase 's unreasonable investigation procedures, its blatant disregard for information provided, and its subsequent mishandling of my valid and fraudulently opened accounts, all within the known context of my documented identity theft victimization, have directly caused substantial financial injury, severe credit damage quantifiable by objective metrics, and profound, documented emotional distress. My attempts to resolve this through standard channels and multiple CFPB complaints ( Ref : Complaint Nos. XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX ) have been met with inadequate, inconsistent, and ultimately unlawful responses, necessitating this demand. \n\nComprehensive Factual Background and Timeline of Chase 's Violations : The following timeline, supported by extensive documentation, underscores Chase 's systematic failures : Documented Identity Theft ( XXXX ) : Chase was aware, or reasonably should have been aware through its investigation process, that I was a verified victim of identity theft, as documented by XXXX XXXX Police Reports XXXX XXXX # XXXX, XXXX ) and my FTC Identity Theft Report ( # XXXX ), which detailed numerous fraudulent accounts, including those linked to Chase. The FTC report specifically identified a fraudulent Chase card among multiple compromised accounts, including XXXX XXXX XXXX ( {$5000.00} fraud ), XXXX XXXX XXXX ( {$3300.00} ), XXXX ( {$2500.00} ), XXXX XXXX ( {$2500.00} ), and XXXX XXXX ( {$1500.00} ). This established a clear pattern of identity theft targeting financial institutions, placing Chase on heightened notice. Under 15 U.S.C. 1681c-2 and the FTC 's Red Flags Rule ( 16 C.F.R. 681.2 ), furnishers must consider such documentation when investigating identity theft claims and implement reasonable procedures to respond to identity theft notices. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX Fraudulent Activity & Dispute : XXXX XXXX inquiries appeared on my credit report dated XX/XX/XXXX. These were promptly disputed with XXXX. XXXX confirmed deletion by XX/XX/XXXX ( Ref : XXXX # XXXX ), putting Chase on notice of specific fraudulent activity linked to my identity. This notice triggered Chase 's duties under 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) to implement heightened scrutiny regarding any future accounts or inquiries in my name, particularly given the documented history of identity theft. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX Legitimate Sapphire Application : I legitimately applied for and was approved for the Chase Sapphire account ending XXXX ( \" Sapphire Account '' ). This application was made with my authentic personal information, from my verified address, and using my legitimate contact informationall distinguishable from the fraudulent patterns documented in the FTC report. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX Improper Closure of Valid Account & Confusing Communications : Shortly after approval, Chase closed the valid Sapphire Account. Chase 's rationale was inconsistent and improperly conflated this valid account with investigations into separate fraudulent accounts ( e.g., XXXX, XXXX ). This action lacked a reasonable basis specific to the Sapphire Account itself, violating the \" reasonable procedures '' requirement of 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A ). \n\nThe closure letter dated XX/XX/XXXX, referenced account ending XXXX ( the XXXX account ), stating closure was due to \" fraud claim history/patterns. '' This demonstrates Chase 's internal confusion and improper linkage between distinct accounts. The letter failed to provide clear, specific information about the Sapphire account ( XXXX ), violating the adverse action notice requirements under both FCRA and Regulation B ( 12 C.F.R. 1002.9 ). \n\nXX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Futile Attempts at Resolution : I endured months of frustrating interactions with Chase representatives ( Ref : Call Transcripts XXXX, XXXX, XXXX ), totaling over 15 hours of documented phone conversations. These transcripts reveal : Chase representatives provided contradictory information about the reason for closure ( bank policy vs. fraud linkage ) Supervisors acknowledged confusion between the legitimate Sapphire account ( XXXX ) and fraudulent accounts ( XXXX ) Chase failed to properly escalate the matter despite clear evidence of their error Representatives directed me to the XXXXXXXX XXXX address and executive office contacts, yet these escalation attempts yielded no resolution This pattern of conduct violates the \" reasonable investigation '' standard established in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX  XXXX ) and adopted by the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ). The call transcripts demonstrate Chase 's failure to implement proper procedures for handling complex identity theft situations, contrary to the requirements of the FTC 's Furnisher Rule, 16 C.F.R. 660.4. \n\nXXXX XXXX Chase 's Misuse of Consumer Statement : After initiating the flawed closure process based on its internal errors, Chase seized upon a statement I made in a CFPB complaint ( filed XX/XX/XXXX - # XXXX ) amidst the confusion Chase created, using it as a post-hoc justification for accepting the Sapphire account as fraudulent ( Ref : Chase Response to CFPB ; Call Transcript XXXX pt XXXX clarifying my intent ). \n\nThe call transcript from XXXX explicitly documents my clarification that the statement was made during a period of extreme confusion created by Chase 's contradictory communications. This occurred even as I was actively trying to correct Chase 's misunderstanding directly ( Ref : Calls surrounding XX/XX/XXXX ). Such selective consideration of evidence violates the \" reasonable investigation '' standard articulated in XXXX XXXX  XXXX & XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) ( furnisher must consider \" all relevant information '' provided by consumer ). \n\nOngoing Harm : The improper closure and associated negative, albeit eventually corrected, reporting resulted in a quantifiable credit score drop ( nearly XXXX points ), impaired my ability to secure funding, caused significant financial strain ( affecting ability to provide for my family ), and inflicted severe, ongoing emotional distress. Courts have consistently recognized such harms as compensable under the FCRA. See XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX  XXXX ) ( recognizing \" mental distress '' as actual damages under FCRA ). \n\nDetailed Legal Violations by Chase : 1. Violation of FCRA 1681s-2 ( b ) Duty to Conduct a Reasonable Investigation : As a furnisher, upon receiving a notice of dispute regarding the accuracy of information provided to CRAs, Chase has a statutory duty to conduct a prompt and reasonable investigation. 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) ( 1 ). This duty requires more than a cursory or superficial review ; it mandates consideration of all relevant information available, including information provided by the consumer. See XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) ( emphasizing that the investigation must be reasonable under the circumstances ) ; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX  XXXX ) ( furnisher must conduct its own reasonable investigation, not just rely on CRA ). \n\nThe XXXX XXXX has specifically held that \" a reasonable investigation ... means more than simply confirming that the challenged information is actually what the furnisher previously reported. '' XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX  XXXX ). Rather, it requires \" a fairly searching inquiry '' that considers the specific circumstances of each case. Id. \n\nChase breached this duty in multiple, documented ways : a ) Failure to Differentiate Between Accounts : Chase failed to differentiate the valid Sapphire Account ( XXXX ) from known fraudulent accounts ( XXXX, XXXX ) during its investigation, contrary to the requirement in XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) that furnishers must \" consider the specific facts '' of each dispute. The call transcripts ( particularly XXXX ) explicitly show Chase representatives acknowledging confusion between these distinct accounts. \n\nb ) Disregard of Critical Evidence : XXXX ignored or failed to reasonably weigh crucial evidence provided ( FTC Report # XXXX, XXXX XXXX Police Reports # XXXX and # XXXX, prior XXXX deletions # XXXX ), violating the principle established in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) that a furnisher must \" evaluate the evidence '' provided by the consumer. These documents clearly established the pattern of identity theft and should have prompted heightened scrutiny to distinguish legitimate from fraudulent activity. \n\nc ) Improper Reliance on Internal Policies : Chase unreasonably relied on internal policies/fraud flags triggered by separate accounts to justify adverse action on the valid Sapphire Account, contrary to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXXXXXX XXXX  XXXX ) ( holding that reliance on internal records alone may be insufficient ). The XX/XX/XXXX closure letter explicitly references \" fraud claim history/patterns '' rather than specific issues with the Sapphire account itself.\n\nd ) Selective Use of Consumer Statements : Chase improperly relied on a single statement made under confusing circumstances ( CFPB complaint # XXXX filed XX/XX/XXXX ), while disregarding clarifications and the totality of evidence demonstrating the Sapphire Account 's validity at the time of closure. The call transcript from XXXX documents my explicit clarification of this misunderstanding. This selective approach violates the standard in XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) ( reasonableness of investigation is evaluated based on cost of verifying accuracy vs. potential harm of inaccuracy ). Given the high potential harm, Chase 's investigation was facially unreasonable.\n\ne ) Systemic Failure in Identity Theft Context : Chase demonstrated a systemic failure to implement proper procedures for handling complex identity theft situations, despite clear regulatory guidance. The FTC 's Furnisher Rule ( 16 C.F.R. 660.4 ) and Interagency Guidelines on Identity Theft ( 12 C.F.R. 222, App. J ) require furnishers to implement reasonable procedures to respond to notifications of identity theft and prevent re-reporting of fraudulent information. Chase 's handling of my case demonstrates a reckless disregard for these requirements. \n\nf ) Inconsistent Communications : The call transcripts ( XXXX, XXXX, XXXX ) document Chase representatives providing contradictory explanations for the Sapphire account closure, demonstrating the absence of a coherent, reasonable investigation process. In XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ), the court held that inconsistent explanations can be evidence of an unreasonable investigation. \n\n2. Violation of FCRA 1681i Failure to Correct or Delete Inaccurate Information : Stemming from its unreasonable investigation, Chase failed its duty under 1681i ( a ) to accurately and timely correct or delete the inaccurate information concerning the Sapphire Account reported to CRAs. Reporting the closure based on a flawed investigation constitutes furnishing inaccurate information. The eventual correction does not absolve Chase of liability for the harm caused during the period of non-compliance. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) ( holding that subsequent correction does not eliminate liability for the period of violation ). \n\nAs the XXXX XXXX has held, \" a plaintiff need not show that the inaccurate information was actually used to his detriment to recover actual damages under the FCRA. '' XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ). The fact that the information was inaccurately reported is sufficient to establish a violation. \n\nThe CFPB complaint responses confirm that Chase eventually accepted both the XXXX and Sapphire accounts as fraudulent and requested deletion from CRAs. However, this belated correction came only after significant damage had occurred, including : a ) A documented credit score drop of nearly XXXX points b ) Inability to secure necessary funding during the critical period c ) Significant financial strain affecting my ability to meet family obligations d ) Extensive time and resources spent attempting to resolve Chase 's errors In XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ), the court recognized that even temporary inaccuracies can cause compensable harm under the FCRA. \n\n3. Violation of Georgia FBPA 10-1-393 ( a ) Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices : Chase 's actions constitute \" unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of consumer transactions, '' prohibited by O.C.G.A. 10-1-393 ( a ). The Georgia FBPA is to be \" liberally construed and applied to promote its underlying purposes and policies, '' which include protecting consumers. O.C.G.A. 10-1-391 ( a ). \n\na ) Unfairness : Closing the valid Sapphire Account based on errors and causing substantial, unavoidable consumer injury ( credit damage, financial hardship, distress ) is patently unfair. Georgia courts have held that practices causing \" substantial injury to consumers which is not reasonably avoidable by consumers themselves and not outweighed by countervailing benefits '' constitute unfair practices. See XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX App. XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX ). \n\nThe call transcripts ( particularly XXXX and XXXX ) document the substantial burden placed on me as a consumer attempting to resolve Chase 's error. Despite providing all requested documentation and clarification, Chase persisted in maintaining its erroneous position until after significant harm had occurred. In XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX ), the court recognized that forcing consumers to undertake extraordinary efforts to correct a company 's error can constitute an unfair practice. \n\nb ) Deception : Providing conflicting, vague, and inaccurate justifications for the closure ( bank policy vs. fraud linkage vs. consumer statement ) constitutes deceptive practices. See XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) ( FBPA provides broad protection against deceptive practices ). The Georgia Court of Appeals has held that \" a representation is deceptive if it has the capacity or tendency to deceive. '' XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX ). \n\nThe XX/XX/XXXX closure letter referenced account ending XXXX ( the XXXX account ) rather than the Sapphire account ( XXXX ), creating confusion about which account was being closed and why. The subsequent explanations provided in calls and CFPB responses shifted from \" bank policy '' to reliance on my own statement made during the confusion Chase created. This pattern of inconsistent, misleading communications meets the standard for deception under Georgia law. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX  XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX ) ( recognizing that misleading communications can constitute deceptive practices ). \n\n4. Willful Noncompliance with FCRA ( 15 U.S.C. 1681n ) : Chase 's conduct rises to the level of willful noncompliance, defined as acting with knowledge or reckless disregard of its statutory duties. XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX. XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX ). The Supreme Court clarified that willfulness includes not only knowing violations but also reckless disregard of statutory duties. Id. at XXXX. Chase 's reckless disregard is evidenced by : a ) Disregard of Established Legal Requirements : Chase failed to implement procedures adequate to distinguish valid from fraudulent accounts in a known ID theft context, despite clear statutory obligations under 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) and regulatory guidance from the FTC and federal banking regulators. See XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) ( finding that disregard of \" well-established legal requirements '' can constitute willfulness ). \n\nb ) Persistence Despite Contrary Evidence : Chase persisted with adverse actions based on clearly flawed internal linkages despite receiving contradictory evidence, including the FTC Identity Theft Report ( # XXXX ), XXXX XXXX Police Reports ( # XXXX, # XXXX ), and XXXX dispute results ( # XXXX ). In XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ), the court found willfulness where a furnisher maintained its position despite being presented with clear evidence contradicting its reporting. \n\nc ) Systemic Failure in Identity Theft Handling : The call transcripts reveal Chase 's systemic failure to handle complex mixed-file/ID theft disputes reasonably, indicating a reckless disregard for the accuracy required by FCRA. See XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) ( finding willfulness where defendant 's procedures were objectively unreasonable in light of legal requirements ). \n\nd ) Post-Hoc Rationalization : Chase 's shifting justifications for the Sapphire account closure, culminating in seizing upon my statement made during the confusion Chase created, demonstrates a bad faith approach to compliance. In XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ), the court found that post-hoc rationalizations for FCRA violations can support a finding of willfulness. \n\nComprehensive Analysis of Potential Counterarguments : 1. \" We followed internal bank policy regarding fraud. '' Rebuttal : Internal policy does not preempt federal law. The FCRA mandates a reasonable investigation specific to the disputed information. A policy that leads to the closure of valid accounts based on unrelated fraud or fails to account for documented identity theft contexts is inherently unreasonable and violates FCRA 1681s-2 ( b ). \n\nMultiple courts have rejected this defense : In Seamans v. XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ), the court held that \" following standard procedures could still be negligent if the procedures themselves are unreasonable. '' In XXXX v. XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ), the court rejected the argument that merely confirming information in internal records satisfied the \" reasonable investigation '' requirement. \nIn XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ), the court emphasized that \" a company 's internal procedures do not immunize it from FCRA liability. '' The documented confusion between accounts ( XXXX vs. XXXX ) in the call transcripts demonstrates that Chase 's internal policies failed to properly distinguish between legitimate and fraudulent accounts in an identity theft context. The XX/XX/XXXX closure letter referencing account XXXX rather than the Sapphire account ( XXXX ) further evidences this confusion. \n\nChase can not shield itself from liability by citing flawed internal procedures. The XXXX XXXX has specifically held that \" a reasonable investigation is one that a reasonably prudent person would undertake under the circumstances. '' XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX  XXXX ). Chase 's investigation failed this standard. \n\n2. \" The consumer 's own statement on XX/XX/XXXX, confirmed the Sapphire account was fraudulent. '' Rebuttal : This is a misleading post-hoc rationalization that fails for multiple legal reasons : ( XXXX ) XXXX 's improper closure process was already underway before this statement, as evidenced by the XX/XX/XXXX closure letter, establishing that the statement was not the actual basis for XXXX 's actions. Courts have rejected such after-the-fact justifications. See XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) ( rejecting post-hoc rationalizations for FCRA violations ). \n\n( 2 ) The statement was made amidst significant confusion created by Chase 's mishandling and inconsistent communication, as documented in the call transcripts ( XXXX, XXXX ). Under established principles of consumer protection law, statements made under circumstances of confusion or duress are not reliable bases for adverse action. See XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) ( emphasizing the importance of evaluating consumer statements in their full context ). \n\n( 3 ) FCRA requires evaluation of all relevant information ; cherry-picking one statement while ignoring prior documentation, context, and direct clarifications ( Ref : Call Transcript XXXX pt XXXX ) is unreasonable. In XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ), the court held that a furnisher must consider \" all relevant information '' provided by the consumer. \n\n( 4 ) The statement was promptly clarified once the confusion was partially resolved in executive calls, as documented in the XXXX transcript. Courts have recognized that consumers have the right to clarify ambiguous statements. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX  XXXX ) ( emphasizing the importance of considering consumer clarifications ). \n\nRelying on this statement as the definitive basis for closure after the fact demonstrates bad faith, which courts have found can support enhanced damages. See XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) ( affirming punitive damages where defendant acted in bad faith ). \n\n3. \" We ultimately accepted the accounts as fraud and requested deletion from CRAs. '' Rebuttal : This late correction does not absolve Chase of liability for the significant damages incurred during the period of non-compliance. The unreasonable investigation and improper handling caused substantial harm ( credit score drop, emotional distress, lost opportunities ) before the eventual, delayed correction. \n\nMultiple courts have established that liability attaches for the period of the violation : In XXXX XXXX  XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ), the court held that \" liability exists even if inaccuracy is eventually corrected. '' In XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ), the court recognized that damages accrue during the period of non-compliance, regardless of later correction. \nIn XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ), the court held that \" subsequent corrections do not eliminate the furnisher 's liability for the period during which the inaccurate information remained on a credit report. '' The CFPB complaint responses confirm that Chase eventually accepted both accounts as fraudulent, but only after months of improper handling and after significant harm had occurred. This belated correction actually serves as an admission that Chase 's initial investigation and handling were flawed. In XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ), the court recognized that eventual correction can serve as evidence that earlier investigations were inadequate. \n\n4. \" The consumer 's claimed damages are speculative. '' Rebuttal : The damages are concrete, documented, and supported by extensive evidence, meeting the standards established in multiple precedential cases : a ) Credit Score Impact : The nearly XXXX credit score drop is an objective, quantifiable metric of harm, recognized as compensable in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX ) ( acknowledging credit score drops as actual damages ). This drop is documented in credit reports before and after Chase 's improper actions. \n\nb ) Emotional Distress : The extensive call transcripts ( XXXX, XXXX, XXXX ) and CFPB filings document the severe emotional distress caused by Chase 's actions. Courts routinely award substantial damages for emotional distress under FCRA : In XXXXXXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX  XXXX ), the court upheld a {$150000.00} emotional distress award under FCRA. \nIn XXXX XXXX. XXXX  XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ), the court affirmed significant emotional distress damages. \nIn XXXX v. XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX ), the court upheld a {$250000.00} emotional distress award. \nc ) Lost Opportunities : The inability to secure funding during the period of Chase 's non-compliance is a concrete economic harm. In XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ), the court recognized that \" loss of credit opportunities '' constitutes actual damages under the FCRA. \n\nd ) Time and Resources : The extensive time spent attempting to resolve Chase 's errors ( documented in call transcripts totaling over 15 hours ) constitutes compensable damages. In XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ), a Georgia federal court recognized that time spent attempting to resolve credit reporting errors is compensable. \n\nThe XXXX XXXX has specifically recognized that \" a plaintiff need not show that the inaccurate information was actually used to his detriment to recover actual damages under the FCRA. '' XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ). While specific outcomes vary, the potential for significant damages based on Chase 's conduct is well-established in case law.\n\n5. \" This dispute is subject to the Cardmember Agreement 's arbitration clause. '' Rebuttal : While acknowledging the arbitration clause in the Cardmember Agreement, it is a procedural mechanism, not a defense to the substantive violations outlined herein. The Supreme Court has recognized that arbitration agreements are generally enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX ). However : a ) Procedural vs. Substantive Rights : The existence of an arbitration clause does not diminish the severity of Chase 's legal violations or the compensation owed. In XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX ), the Court clarified that arbitration agreements affect the forum, not substantive rights. \n\nb ) Preparedness for Arbitration : Should Chase invoke this clause and compel arbitration, I am fully prepared to pursue these claims vigorously in that forum, seeking the same full measure of damages. Arbitrators have awarded significant damages in FCRA cases. See, e.g., XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) ( noting arbitration awards in FCRA cases ). \n\nc ) Potential Unenforceability : Courts have invalidated arbitration clauses in certain consumer contexts where they effectively prevent vindication of statutory rights. See XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX ) ( acknowledging the \" effective vindication '' exception ). Given the documented pattern of Chase 's conduct, there may be grounds to challenge the enforceability of the arbitration clause in this specific context.\n\nd ) Applicability to Fraudulent Accounts : The arbitration clause may not apply to accounts that Chase has now acknowledged as fraudulent. In XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ), the court recognized limitations on the applicability of arbitration clauses to disputed accounts. \n\n6. \" The consumer failed to mitigate damages. '' Rebuttal : The extensive documentation demonstrates my diligent efforts to mitigate damages through every available channel : a ) Prompt Dispute Initiation : I promptly disputed the fraudulent inquiries with XXXX ( resolved by XX/XX/XXXX, Ref : # XXXX ), demonstrating diligence in addressing identity theft issues. \n\nb ) Extensive Communication Attempts : The call transcripts ( XXXX, XXXX, XXXX ) document over 15 hours of calls attempting to resolve Chase 's errors, including escalation to supervisors and the executive office.\n\nc ) Multiple CFPB Complaints : I filed multiple CFPB complaints ( Ref : Complaint Nos. XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX ) in an effort to resolve the issues through regulatory channels. \n\nd ) Comprehensive Documentation : I provided comprehensive documentation, including the FTC Identity Theft Report ( # XXXX ) and XXXX XXXX Police Reports ( # XXXX, # XXXX ), to assist Chase in properly investigating the matter. \n\nCourts have recognized that consumers are not required to undertake extraordinary measures to mitigate damages caused by a furnisher 's FCRA violations. See XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) ( rejecting argument that consumer failed to mitigate damages where she took reasonable steps to address the issue ). The documented efforts here far exceed what courts have considered reasonable mitigation efforts. \n\nDamages and Demand : Chase 's violations of FCRA and FBPA have directly caused : 1. Actual Economic Damages : {$85000.00} This amount encompasses : a ) Credit Score Impact : The documented XXXX credit score drop has concrete economic value. In XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX ), the court recognized that credit score drops constitute actual damages. Credit scoring experts typically value each point of a FICO score at approximately {$500.00} in lifetime borrowing costs, supporting a valuation of {$50000.00} for this component alone. \n\nb ) Lost Credit Opportunities : The inability to secure necessary funding during the critical period has caused cascading financial impacts. In XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ), the court recognized \" loss of credit opportunities '' as compensable damages. \n\nc ) Time and Resources : Over 15 hours of documented phone calls, plus time spent preparing CFPB complaints, gathering documentation, and addressing the financial fallout. In King v. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ), a Georgia federal court recognized that time spent attempting to resolve credit reporting errors is compensable.\n\n2. Actual Emotional Distress Damages : {$250000.00} This amount reflects the documented severity and duration of anxiety, stress, and hardship caused by Chase 's actions against a known","date_sent_to_company":"2025-04-02T07:30:11.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"30032","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"12769499","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","date_received":"2025-04-02T07:14:19.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Information belongs to someone else"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Comprehensive Factual Background and <em>Timeline</em> of Chase 's Violations : The following <em>timeline</em>, supported by extensive documentation, underscores Chase 's systematic failures : Documented Identity Theft ( XXXX ) : Chase was aware, or reasonably should have been aware through its <em>investigation</em> process, that I was a verified victim of identity theft, as documented by XXXX XXXX Police Reports XXXX XXXX # XXXX, XXXX ) and my FTC Identity Theft Report ( # XXXX ), which detailed numerous fraudulent accounts"]},"sort":[6.423978,"12769499"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17093707","_score":6.3326406,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"You said : THIS IS MY COMPAINT TO XXXX  about BMO : I am writing to formally file a complaint and dispute regarding a loan account that BMO Bank N.A . acquired from another lender approximately XXXX years ago. I did not apply for credit with BMO, nor was I given an opportunity to evaluate or consent to the transfer of my debt to their institution. Since that transfer, my experience with BMO has been persistently frustrating and has caused significant distress. Specifically : - I have repeatedly attempted to contact BMO via phone and their digital platform to discuss the terms, status, and history of my loan. - Their phone system is unreasonably unresponsivecalls are dropped, representatives are unable or unwilling to provide meaningful support, and I am consistently transferred or dismissed without resolution. - The BMO web portal lacks essential transparency and functionality. It does not allow me to access a comprehensive account history, fee breakdowns, timestamps for payments, or proper billing documentation. - I have no clear path to reach a qualified representative who can explain my loan in detail or verify charges. This lack of access to basic account information and effective customer service raises serious concerns about their compliance with the Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ) and other consumer protection standards. Additional Concern : Coercive Consent Requirement & Denial of Access Recently, I discovered that BMO has restricted access to their online banking system unless I agree to their Digital Banking E-Sign Consent and Disclosure Agreement. This agreement contains coercive terms, including mandatory acceptance of electronic-only communications and a threat to terminate digital access if I decline. I consider this a denial of reasonable access to my account and an unfair business practice. \nThe consumer provided the XXXX said : Heres a polished and complete version of your XXXX complaint, ensuring it reads clearly, professionally, You said : Uploaded image This is their response : We appreciate the opportunity to provide additional information regarding your concerns. In your complaint you state that after XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX was convened to BMO Bank that you were not able to get help or information about your loan.\n\nBMO Bank takes all customer concems seriously and has conducted a thorough review of this matter. We are committed to serving our customers in a fair and ethical manner in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations. \nIn response, we provide the following : After a careful review, your account does have online access for the loan ending with XXXX. Our records indicate the loan was from XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX and was transferred to BMO Bank on XX/XX/XXXX. A conversion letter was sent to you in XX/XX/XXXX that outlined the steps taken during the conversion. The Bank can continue to service you through the customer contact center and through online/mobile app. Security features online and within the application must be acknowledged and approved to continue the full service. Attached with this letter is the conversion letter sent in XX/XX/XXXX and a payment histoly ofthe loan. \nWe trust this addresses the concerns in your complaint. If you have any additional questions regarding this matter. \nXXXX said : Thanks for You said : BMO-Digital-Banking-Esign-Consent-Agreement.pdf PDF PLease write a response rejecting their response highlighting the fact that they ignored the topic of \" Coercive Consent Requirement & Denial of Access Recently, I discovered that BMO has restricted access to their online banking system unless I agree to their Digital Banking E-Sign Consent and Disclosure Agreement. This agreement contains coercive terms, including mandatory acceptance of electronic-only communications and a threat to terminate digital access if I decline. I consider this a denial of reasonable access to my account and an unfair business practice. '' XXXX said : Here is a professional yet firm response rejecting BMOs reply, highlighting their failure to address your concern about coercive consent and denial of access : To Whom It May Concern, Thank you for your response to my formal complaint regarding the mishandling of my loan account originally serviced by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX \n\nUnfortunately, your response fails to address a central and critical issue I raised : BMO 's coercive requirement that I accept the Digital Banking E-Sign Consent and Disclosure Agreement in order to maintain access to my loan account online. This document clearly states ( see Page 1, Paragraph 1 of the Consent Agreement ) : Your enrollment in BMO Digital Banking requires that you agree to accept electronic communications. We must terminate your access if you withdraw your consent. \n\nThis amounts to a forced waiver of my right to paper-based communications and access, with the only alternative being a complete lockout from essential digital services. I believe this is an unfair and coercive practice, as it effectively punishes customers who prefer or require traditional access methods, including those with disabilities, technology limitations, or privacy concerns.\n\nRequiring such consent as a precondition for account access is not only coercive but may also violate consumer protection principles under the Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ) and Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices ( UDAP ) standards. It is not a \" preference '' being requestedthis is a mandatory opt-in with punitive consequences for refusal, which is fundamentally unfair. \n\nYour response did not acknowledge or engage with this concern at all. I ask again that you directly address : Why BMO makes digital access contingent upon agreeing to this E-Sign Consent, What accommodations are available for customers who decline consent, And how this practice aligns with your stated commitment to fairness and ethical conduct. \n\nPlease treat this as a continued and unresolved complaint. I respectfully request this issue be escalated internally for further review and an appropriate resolution that does not require me to relinquish reasonable access to my account in order to exercise my consumer rights. \n\nSincerely, [ Your Full Name ] [ Your Contact Information ] [ Loan Account Ending in XXXX ] Let me know if you'd like a version formatted as a XXXX follow-up or if you want to submit this to the CFPB as well. \n\nYou said : is this leagal? Your enrollment in BMO Digital Banking requires that you agree to accept electronic communications. We must terminate your access if you withdraw your consent XXXX said : The clause from BMOs Digital Banking E-Sign Consent stating : Your enrollment in BMO Digital Banking requires that you agree to accept electronic communications. We must terminate your access if you withdraw your consent. \n\nis likely legal, but it raises ethical and regulatory concerns, especially if it effectively limits reasonable access to account information. \n\nLegality : Under the federal E-SIGN Act ( Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act ), financial institutions are allowed to : Provide disclosures and communications electronically, if the consumer consents. \n\nMake certain services ( like digital banking ) contingent on consent as long as the customer still has access to required disclosures by other means. \n\nKey Considerations : Its Legal If Alternatives Exist A bank can require electronic consent for access to its online services, if it still allows you to manage your account by other methods ( e.g., phone, in-branch, or mailed paper statements ). However : If digital banking is the only practical way to access your account, and paper alternatives are insufficient or inaccessible, this policy may cross into unfair territory.\n\nTruth in Lending Act ( TILA ) Lenders must ensure consumers can access their account terms, balances, fees, and payment history. \n\nIf BMOs only practical path to this information is onlineand its blocked unless you consent to paperless-only termsthat could be seen as non-compliant with TILA or UDAP ( Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices ). \n\nUnfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices ( UDAP/UDAAP ) A practice may be unfair if it causes substantial harm to consumers that they can not reasonably avoid, and its not outweighed by benefits.\n\nCoercively gating access to basic account info behind forced consent might qualify as unfair, especially for vulnerable customers ( e.g., elderly, disabled, or those without reliable internet ). \n\nWhat You Can Do : File with the CFPB : The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau investigates exactly these types of issues. You can file a complaint here XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX Mention Accessibility and Coercion : Highlight that this policy : Forces you to agree to terms you may not want, Denies you reasonable access otherwise, May harm those who rely on digital access but dont wish to waive rights to paper communications. \n\nWould you like help drafting a complaint to the CFPB or another agency like your states Attorney General or Department of Banking? \n\nYou said : please save this chat as BMO complaint XXXX  said : Updated saved memory Got it this chat is now saved under BMO complaint. Let me know anytime you want to revisit or expand on it, including drafting filings or letters to regulators. \n\nYou said : Uploaded image The latest from BMO after XXXX  did noting with our complaint. BMO effectively said \" Nope, That wasn ; t us '' and closed the case. What can we do now? \nXXXX said : Thanks for sharing the letter this is a formal Notice of Default and Right to Cure from BMO, dated XX/XX/XXXX, demanding {$820.00} by XX/XX/XXXX, or else they XXXX repossess your XXXX XXXX XXXX ( presumably a trailer/RV ). Given that the XXXX  closed your case without resolution, and BMO is continuing forward as if your previous complaints were dismissed, here 's a breakdown of what you can do next : Key Problems BMO Did Not Address Your Original Complaint You were never given a choice in the transfer of your loan from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX \n\nYour complaint specifically cited lack of access, coercive consent terms, and inability to get help via phone or online not merely a missed payment. \n\nCoercive E-Sign Consent Requirement Remains BMO requires acceptance of their Digital Banking E-Sign Consent or they will deny digital access, which arguably violates consumer protection norms, particularly for vulnerable users or those who rely on digital-only access. \n\nNow They Are Threatening Repossession The right to cure letter demands a lump-sum payment without offering meaningful resolution to your concerns, which could be interpreted as retaliatory or aggressive, especially given that youve been attempting to resolve this for some time.\n\nNext Steps You Can Take 1. File a Complaint with the CFPB The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) handles complaints about lenders, servicers, and digital banking policies. It has more enforcement power than the XXXX. \n\nGo here to file : XXXX XXXX XXXX  Attach : Your original XXXX complaint BMOs inadequate response The E-Sign Consent Agreement PDF This Default Letter Clearly state : You were given no meaningful opportunity to opt out of electronic-only access Youre being denied access unless you accept coercive terms You are being threatened with repossession while BMO ignores your lawful requests for documentation and access 2. Send a Certified Letter Disputing the Default Send a certified, trackable letter to BMO 's correspondence or complaints department not the payment address. \n\nState : You dispute the validity of the default notice You have not been provided documentation or assistance You are actively pursuing regulatory remedies Let me know if you'd like help drafting that letter I can write it in PDF or Word format for you.\n\n3. Contact Your State Attorney General or Banking Regulator In XXXX, you can file with : XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Or your local Attorney Generals consumer division 4. Servicemembers Civil Relief Act ( SCRA ) If you are a veteran or active duty service member, this notice triggers SCRA protections. BMO is legally obligated to provide accommodations and protections ( even post-discharge for some ).\n\nIf applicable, we can draft a response citing your military status or requesting protection under SCRA, especially to delay repossession. \n\nImportant : Preserve All Evidence Save and print every letter, screenshot, or call log Record all calls if legal in your state ( XXXX  is a two-party consent state, so ask first ) Would you like me to : Draft a CFPB complaint summary for you to copy/paste? \n\nDraft a certified letter to BMOs legal department? \n\nGenerate a formal dispute template under federal law? \n\nJust say the word and Ill prepare them right away. \n\nYou said : Uploaded image This was they're ealier response for CFPB please help write respone to : What happened? \nDescribe what happened, and well send your comments to the companies involved. \nInclude dates, amounts, and actions that were taken by you or the company. \nDo not include personal information, such as your name, account number, address, Social Security number, etc. We may ask for some of this information later, to help the company identify you and your account. \nXXXX said : Here is a draft you can use for the What happened? section on your CFPB complaint form, based on the timeline, letters, and your earlier notes : Summary of What Happened : In XX/XX/XXXX, my loan account was transferred from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX BMO Bank N.A . without my prior consent or an opportunity to review or reject the terms of this transfer. Since then, BMO has continuously failed to provide me with transparent access to my loan information or competent customer service, despite multiple requests. \n\nProblems experienced : Lack of Accessible Information I was not given full access to a payment history or clear fee breakdowns through BMOs web portal. \n\nThere is no meaningful way to view comprehensive billing documentation, payment timestamps, or amortization records through their platform.\n\nUnresponsive Customer Service I attempted multiple times to resolve these issues via BMO 's phone system, but my calls were frequently dropped, transferred endlessly, or met with representatives who could not help. \n\nNo resolution was ever reached despite persistent effort on my part. \n\nCoercive Digital Access Policy BMO denies access to its online banking platform unless customers accept their \" Digital Banking E-Sign Consent and Disclosure Agreement. '' This document ( uploaded here ) states explicitly that if I do not agree to electronic-only communications, my access will be terminated. \n\nI consider this a coercive practice that prevents customers from reviewing and managing their loans unless they waive important communication rights. \n\nComplaint Mishandled by XXXX  I filed a formal complaint with the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Complaint # XXXX ), and BMO responded with a letter dated XX/XX/XXXX, that failed to address any of my digital access or consent-related concerns. \n\nThe XXXX  closed the complaint without requiring a resolution. \n\nNotice of Default Sent While Issues Remain Unresolved On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX sent me a Notice XXXX XXXX and Right to Cure, demanding {$820.00} by XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nThis includes charges I can not verify because BMO still does not provide itemized breakdowns in a transparent way. \n\nI am now under threat of repossession, despite the fact that I have been actively trying to resolve the underlying service and access issues. \n\nXXXX : XX/XX/XXXX XXXX notice allegedly sent by BMO ( not received clearly by me ). \n\nXX/XX/XXXX XXXX officially transferred to BMO. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX XXXX  complaint filed. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX BMO response to XXXX  ( failed to address key concerns ). \n\nXX/XX/XXXX Notice of Default and Right to Cure issued by BMO for {$820.00}. \n\nOngoing Attempts to reach support, access loan records, and resolve matters have not been successful. \n\nWhat I Am Requesting : A full and itemized explanation of my account and all associated fees. \n\nUnrestricted access to my loan account without being forced to accept electronic-only communications. \n\nA halt to repossession proceedings and account default penalties until a fair review and resolution are completed.\n\nRegulatory investigation into whether BMOs forced digital consent policy constitutes an unfair practice under the Truth in Lending Act or E-SIGN Act.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-07T20:44:45.000Z","issue":"Written notification about debt","sub_product":"Other debt","zip_code":"19040","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17093707","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BMO BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2025-11-07T20:30:28.000Z","state":"PA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Didn't receive enough information to verify debt"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>What</em> You Can Do : File with the CFPB : The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau <em>investigates</em> exactly these types of issues. You can file a complaint here XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX Mention Accessibility and Coercion : Highlight that this policy : Forces you to agree to terms you may not want, Denies you reasonable access otherwise, May harm those who rely on digital access but dont wish to waive <em>rights</em> to paper communications."]},"sort":[6.3326406,"17093707"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"15971197","_score":6.0936165,"_source":{"product":"Debt or credit management","complaint_what_happened":"Company : Nelnet ( servicer ) on behalf of the U.S. Department of Education ( ED ). \nIm XXXX XXXX. Nelnet has delayed and obstructed basic servicing on my federal student loansincluding providing a full account history, written explanations, and timely answers. Nelnet demanded sensitive PII by email to verify but failed to proceed meaningfully after I responded, and I still dont have a complete accounting, status clarity, or assurance of accurate credit reporting. Im requesting : ( 1 ) a complete account reconstruction ( all loans, balances, interest, capitalization, payment allocation ), ( 2 ) confirmation of current repayment status and any forbearance/deferment or IDR eligibility, ( 3 ) correction/removal of any inaccurate credit reporting, and ( 4 ) a secure channel and single point of contact. ED is the creditor and ultimately responsible for servicer compliance. Please compel Nelnet/ED to provide records, correct errors, and confirm compliance. \n\n\n-- - 2 ) Full Narrative ( detailed ) Who I am & accounts : I am XXXX XXXX, borrower on federal student loans owned by the U.S. Department of Education and serviced by Nelnet. I contacted Nelnet to obtain a complete, written accounting of my loans and to resolve servicing questions ( status, balances, capitalization, payment allocation, and any credit reporting ). \n\nWhat happened : Nelnet replied requesting SSN/account/DOB for privacy verification, directing me to email XXXX. I understand privacy verification is required ; however, after supplying the requested details through their process/portal ( or offering to use a secure channel ), I have not received the complete, itemized account history or timely, substantive answers. \n\nI still lack : A full transaction ledger ( origination, disbursements, consolidations if any, payment history, interest accrual by date/rate, capitalization events, current principal/interest breakdown ). \n\nA clear statement of current status ( in repayment, deferment/forbearance, or administrative hold ) and the legal basis and dates for any status changes. \n\nWritten confirmation of IDR/PSLF eligibility or why those options are not being applied ( if applicable ). \n\nAssurance that credit reporting ( if any ) is accurate and up to date and that no adverse data was furnished while my requests were pending. \n\n\nBottom line : I have repeatedly asked for timely, accurate, and complete information about my federal loans, and Nelnet has not provided a compliant response or the full documentation needed to verify accuracy. \n\n\nWhy this is a problem : Federal student-loan servicers must provide timely and accurate information, maintain complete records, and respond to borrower inquiries with clear, written explanations and supporting documents. \n\nIf any information was furnished to consumer reporting agencies, the FCRA requires accuracy and prompt correction of disputed information. \n\nAs EDs contracted servicer, Nelnets failures ultimately reflect on ED ; consumers should not be bounced between entities. \n\n\nHarm : Ongoing uncertainty about balances and status ; risk of misapplied payments or improper capitalization ; potential credit harm if inaccurate data was reported ; and time and effort chasing basic records. I need a complete, authoritative accounting and corrections where applicable. \n\n\n\n-- - 3 ) Requested Relief ( be explicit ) I request that the CFPB require Nelnet and ED to : 1. Produce a complete account reconstruction ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) showing, for each loan : origination/disbursement, interest rates by period, daily interest accrual, capitalization events ( date/amount/cause ), payment allocation by date ( to principal/interest/fees ), current principal vs. interest, outstanding balance, and current repayment status. \n\n\n2. Provide written explanations for any deferment/forbearance/administrative holds ( with start/end dates and authority ) and confirm current repayment plan.\n\n3. Review and document IDR eligibility ( and PSLF, if applicable ), identify the best available plan, and implement it upon my election, with back-dated corrections if I was improperly steered or delayed.\n\n4. Audit and correct any credit reporting tied to these loans ; delete or adjust any inaccurate late/missed payment entries ; and furnish me written proof of all changes sent to CRAs.\n\n5. Provide a secure communications channel ( portal or encrypted method ) and assign a single point of contact with direct phone/email to resolve open items.\n\n6. Confirm all fees/charges assessed are lawful and reverse any improper amounts ; provide a waiver/credit if delays or errors were on the servicers side.\n\n7. Deliver all requested records within 30 days and a final, plain-English summary confirming that my account is accurate and in the correct status going forward.\n\n-- - 4 ) CFPB Form Selections ( what to pick ) Product : Student loan Loan type : Federal student loan Issue : Trouble with how the loan is being serviced ( e.g., Incorrect information on account / Trouble getting information / Problems when you asked to get help ) pick the closest available options Company : Nelnet ( servicer ) Mention creditor/owner in narrative : U.S. Department of Education Resolution sought : Records production ; corrected accounting ; corrected credit reporting ; clear status/plan ; secure contact ; reversal of improper charges Submitter : I am the consumer Consent to share with company : Yes ( to enable Nelnet/ED to respond ) -- - 5 ) Evidence Checklist ( attach what you can ) Nelnets email asking for verification and your reply/submission ( screenshots or XXXX ) Any Nelnet statements/letters/secure messages showing status, balances, rates, or plan Any credit report pages showing tradelines/late marks related to these loans A timeline of your contacts ( dates you wrote/called ; what you asked for ; what they sent or failed to send ) Your IDR/PSLF inquiries ( if applicable ) and any confirmations/denials Any proof of payment misapplication or unexplained capitalization Your contact info ( entered only in the portal fields ) -- - 6 ) One-paragraph version ( if the form forces brevity ) Nelnet ( for U.S. Dept. of Education ) has not provided a complete, timely accounting of my federal student loans despite multiple requests. I still lack a full transaction history, capitalization details, payment allocation, and clear current status/plan. I also need confirmation/correction of any credit reporting. Please compel Nelnet/ED to ( 1 ) provide a full account reconstruction ( XXXX  ), ( 2 ) explain any forbearance/holds and confirm my current plan/IDR eligibility, ( 3 ) correct any inaccurate credit reporting and confirm updates to CRAs, ( 4 ) reverse any improper charges, and ( 5 ) assign a secure channel and single point of contact. I want a final, clear summary within 30 days confirming my accounts are accurate and in the correct status. \n\n\nCompany : Nelnet ( servicer ) for the U.S. Department of Education. \nI am XXXX XXXX. Federal student loans were fraudulently taken out in 2009 without my consent. I have disputed this repeatedly with Nelnet and other parties for years, yet Nelnet continues to treat me as liable and allows interest to accumulate. Despite my requests, I have not received a full account reconstruction, documentation proving my consent, or correction of records. This debt is not legally mine. I request : ( 1 ) proof of consent or promissory notes, ( 2 ) immediate release of liability, ( 3 ) removal of all adverse credit reporting, and ( 4 ) refund/waiver of all amounts falsely charged. \n\n\n-- - XXXX ) Full Narrative Who I am : I am XXXX XXXX, listed as a borrower on federal student loans serviced by Nelnet on behalf of the U.S. Department of Education ( ED ).\n\nWhat happened : Student loans were taken out in XXXX without my knowledge or consent. I did not sign the Master Promissory Note ( MPN ) or authorize disbursement. I have raised this dispute with Nelnet and other third parties for years. \n\nDespite repeated complaints, Nelnet continues to treat me as legally liable, allowing interest to accumulate for over a decade on loans that were not lawfully originated. \n\nNelnet has not provided copies of signed notes, disbursement authorizations, or other documentary proof tying me to the loans. \n\nInstead, I receive form letters demanding repayment or directing me into repayment plans, which presuppose liability that I dispute. \n\nThis has caused long-term financial harm, damaged my credit, and created barriers to my career and candidacy for public office. \n\n\nWhy this is a problem : No lender or servicer may lawfully collect on a debt without proof of consent. \n\nUnder the Higher Education Act and ED servicing contracts, Nelnet is required to maintain and provide loan origination documents ( e.g., signed MPN ).\n\nContinuing to assess and capitalize interest on loans taken without consent violates basic contract principles, as well as consumer protection law. \n\nIf credit reporting has occurred, this may also violate the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). \n\nI have a right under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) ( if applicable ) to request verification and to not be held liable for debts I did not incur. \n\n\nHarm suffered : More than a decade of accrued, compounding interest on a fraudulent debt. \n\nCredit damage from adverse tradelines. \n\nRepeated stress, wasted time, and financial barriers from a debt I do not legally owe. \n\n\n\n-- - 3 ) Requested Relief I request that the CFPB compel Nelnet and ED to : 1. Produce original signed documentation ( Master Promissory Note, disbursement records, consent forms ). If no such documents exist, immediately acknowledge the loans were not authorized.\n\n2. Release me from all liability and update all records accordingly.\n\n3. Cease interest accrual and remove all accumulated amounts tied to these unauthorized loans.\n\n4. Correct credit reporting delete all tradelines and adverse marks tied to these fraudulent loans.\n\n5. Refund or credit any amounts collected based on this debt.\n\n6. Provide a written statement from ED confirming that I am not legally responsible for these loans.\n\n7. Establish a secure communications channel and assign a single point of contact to resolve this matter.\n\n-- - 4 ) CFPB Form Selections Product : Student loan Loan type : Federal student loan Issue : Loan was taken out without my consent / incorrect information on account / problems with dispute resolution Company : Nelnet ( servicer ) Mention creditor : U.S. Department of Education ( ED ) Resolution sought : Release of liability, deletion of tradelines, refund/waiver of all amounts, proof of origination documents Submitter : I am the consumer -- - 5 ) Evidence Checklist Copies of all prior disputes you sent to Nelnet/ED. \n\nAny Nelnet responses ( especially form letters that ignore your liability dispute ). \n\nCredit report showing adverse tradelines tied to these loans. \n\nDocumentation showing lack of consent ( no signed MPN, no disbursement authorization ). \n\nA timeline of your disputes ( XXXX ). \n\nCourses of Action ( XXXX ) A. Loan Origination & Consent Verification ( XXXX ) 1. Produce the original Master Promissory Note ( MPN ) signed in XXXX ( if any ). \n\n\n2. Provide a copy of any consent form authorizing disbursements from that year.\n\n3. Identify the disbursing institution and verify whether it followed required ED procedures.\n\n4. Verify my identity was confirmed when the loan was originated.\n\n5. Provide all records of communication in 2009 related to the loan origination.\n\n6. Produce any affidavits or declarations attesting that I consented.\n\n7. Provide documentation of loan counseling ( if required ) that I allegedly received.\n\n8. Show evidence of how the lender verified that the address and SSN were correct.\n\n9. Produce a signature sample comparison ( if signature exists ).\n\n10. Identify any witnesses to the signing or issuance of the loan.\n\n11. Provide copies of all notices required by law at origination ( e.g., borrower rights, repayment options ).\n\n12. Show whether any power of attorney or guardianship was used.\n\n13. Provide copies of all disbursement schedules tied to the loans.\n\n14. Provide all promissory note amendments or consolidations.\n\n15. Identify any consolidation loans into which these loans may have been rolled.\n\n16. Provide a timeline of all disbursements, interest accrual, and capitalization events.\n\n17. Confirm whether the origination complied with HEA ( Higher Education Act ) requirements.\n\n18. Provide any state law disclosures required in 2009.\n\n19. Prove chain of title if the loan was sold or transferred.\n\n20. Confirm no fraudulent signatures or identity theft investigations were performed.\n\nB. Full Account Reconstruction ( XXXX ) XXXX. Produce a detailed transaction ledger from 2009 to present. \n\n\n22. Show interest rates in effect over time, by period.\n\n23. Record all payments madeprincipal, interest, feeswith date allocation.\n\n24. Show all capitalization events ( when interest was added to principal ), with dates and amounts.\n\n25. Provide an amortization schedule or calculation.\n\n26. Compute daily interest accrual.\n\n27. Provide calculations showing what I would have owed if no interest accrued ( hypothetical ).\n\n28. Show what my balance would be under each possible repayment plan.\n\n29. Provide all notices of delinquency or default sent to me.\n\n30. Show any subsidies or deferments applied.\n\n31. Provide records of any forbearance or suspension.\n\n32. Provide records of any administrative holds.\n\n33. Provide records of any refund or credit.\n\n34. Provide statements/emails showing required disclosure of fees.\n\n35. Provide all correspondence about loan status.\n\n36. Provide breakdown of fees charged ( origination, late, default, collection ).\n\n37. Provide payment allocation method used ( toward interest vs. principal ).\n\n38. Provide proof of proper disclosures under federal law.\n\n39. Provide my current balance : principal, interest, fees, capitalized amounts.\n\n40. Show whether any payments were misapplied.\n\n41. Provide reconciliation between what I paid vs. what the account shows.\n\n42. Provide monthly statements or notices ( if required ).\n\n43. Provide notices of rights under IDR/PSLF ( if required ).\n\n44. Provide past payment plan documents.\n\n45. Show how extra payments ( if any ) were credited.\n\n46. Provide records of current repayment status.\n\n47. Provide notice of any late fees or penalties and their basis.\n\n48. Provide proof of mailing ( or electronic delivery ) of all required statements.\n\n49. Provide disclosures of default rights.\n\n50. Provide proof that I was notified of all required rights ( e.g., deferment, loan forgiveness programs ).\n\nC. Credit Reporting & FCRA Compliance ( XXXX ) 51. Confirm whether any negative reporting to credit bureaus occurred.\n\n52. If yes, provide which bureau ( s ), which tradelines, on what dates.\n\n53. Remove or correct any adverse tradelines resulting from unauthorized/incorrect debt.\n\n54. Send proof to bureaus that corrections were made.\n\n55. Provide copies of all credit bureau reports in which my loans appear.\n\n56. Provide all furnisher documentation ( information provided to bureaus ).\n\n57. Confirm whether you reported interest that accrued illegally.\n\n58. Provide written confirmation of what was sent in dispute letters.\n\n59. Provide correspondence with credit bureaus about dispute.\n\n60. Provide any credit repair or remediation undertaken.\n\n61. Confirm that no further reporting will occur until this is resolved.\n\n62. Provide credit reporting history from 2009 forward.\n\n63. Provide any automated adverse action notices sent due to reporting.\n\n64. Provide whether any collections agency was involved in reporting.\n\n65. Provide records of any fees or collections forwarded to agencies.\n\n66. Provide dispute escalation logs for credit reporting.\n\n67. Provide records of any fees for credit report copies.\n\n68. Provide sample translated notices if non-English required.\n\n69. Provide documentation showing compliance with FCRA 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2.\n\n70. Provide policy for how Nelnet corrects furnishing errors.\n\nD. Communication, Dispute Process & Customer Access ( 71-95 ) 71. Provide secure means of communication ( portal/email ) documented.\n\n72. Assign a single individual as point of contact for my case.\n\n73. Provide transcripts or logs of phone calls related to my disputes.\n\n74. Provide email threads or message records.\n\n75. Provide dates when I made requests and Nelnets responses.\n\n76. Provide notice log showing when and how notices were delivered.\n\n77. Provide content of any written denials or explanations.\n\n78. Provide policy for turnaround time on borrower dispute requests.\n\n79. Provide whether Nelnet offered IDR or PSLF options.\n\n80. Provide written delivery receipts of bills or notices.\n\n81. Provide sample notices used for late or missed payments.\n\n82. Provide audit log of who accessed my customer profile.\n\n83. Provide security/privacy notifications sent to me.\n\n84. Provide customer complaint history related to similar origin-of-loan issues.\n\n85. Provide documentation of Nelnets escalations and internal reviews.\n\n86. Provide disclosures required under HEA/TEACHING regulations.\n\n87. Provide documentation of required annual notices.\n\n88. Provide records of default collection attempts.\n\n89. Provide records of student loan servicing oversight audits.\n\n90. Provide data on how many borrowers disputed origin-of-loan claims and resolution rates.\n\n91. Provide policy copies about debt collection communication frequency.\n\n92. Provide transcripts or recordings of any in-person meetings ( if applicable ).\n\n93. Provide disclosure of any internal investigation into identity theft/fraud regarding my account.\n\n94. Provide notice of rights under FDCPA ( if applicable ).\n\n95. Provide customer service scripts or guidelines used when denying origin consent.\n\nE. Regulatory, Legal & Policy Compliance ( 96-125 ) 96. Confirm compliance with ED servicing agreement obligations.\n\n97. Provide EDs oversight reports for Nelnets performance.\n\n98. Provide audit or compliance reviews by ED documenting issues.\n\n99. Provide copies of any FSA Ombudsman determinations relating to my loans.\n\n100. Provide all applicable federal statutes e.g., HEA, Title IV, 34 CFR 685 etc.\n\n101. Provide your policy for proving identity theft or fraudulent origin.\n\n102. Provide legal opinions you relied on for insisting on liability.\n\n103. Confirm compliance with statute of limitations where applicable.\n\n104. Provide policies on retention/destruction of origination records.\n\n105. Provide your internal legal analyses of borrowers disputing origin.\n\n106. Provide your attorneys interpretations of arbitration / dispute clauses.\n\n107. Provide documentation you rely on for refusing to honor IDR or forgiveness programs.\n\n108. Provide your governing contract with ED showing what Nelnet is responsible for.\n\n109. Provide FSA/ED guidance cited in that contract.\n\n110. Provide EDs written policies on loan disputes and fraud.\n\n111. Provide policy guidance on interest capitalization.\n\n112. Provide legal basis for capitalizing interest while dispute unresolved.\n\n113. Provide HEA guidance on borrower rights.\n\n114. Provide waiver or discharge policies and how they apply to unauthorized origin loans.\n\n115. Provide legal precedent or case law used in your decision.\n\n116. Provide policy on how Nelnet investigates claims of non-consensual origination.\n\n117. Provide EDs oversight metrics and penalties for servicers who fail.\n\n118. Provide your compliance with federal consumer protection laws ( FTC Act, TILA etc if any cross-applicable ).\n\n119. Provide policy on preventing discrimination or unfair targeting ( political belief etc ).\n\n120. Provide certifications or attestations that data privacy laws are complied with ( FERPA, other ).\n\n121. Provide legal review logs ( internal counsel advice memos ).\n\n122. Provide your policy for notifying borrowers about pending account closure or legal liability.\n\n123. Provide policy regarding contending assumption of debt without debt-origin documentation.\n\n124. Provide policy on disputing closed claims and releasing borrowers from misattributed liability.\n\n125. Provide your policy on customer restitution when errors committed.\n\nF. Refunds, Compensation & Financial Remedies ( 126-150 ) 126. Refund all interest accrued on loans taken without my consent.\n\n127. Waive all principal and interest on debts for which no promissory note exists.\n\n128. Remove all associated fees, penalties, late charges.\n\n129. Credit my account for any overpayments made.\n\n130. Recompute balance under no-debt scenario if origin not proven.\n\n131. Adjust any tax reporting ( 1098-E, etc. ) if required.\n\n132. Remove any collection agency charges.\n\n133. Cover cost of disputes ( phone, mail, time ).\n\n134. Compensate for credit score impact.\n\n135. Cover attorneys fees ( if I hire counsel ).\n\n136. Provide monetary compensation for emotional distress.\n\n137. Provide compensation for lost opportunities ( if campaign or job disrupted ).\n\n138. Provide punitive damages if lawfully permitted.\n\n139. Refund any charges for credit report copies if required.\n\n140. Compensate me for time lost gathering documentation.\n\n141. Compensation for late/unjust debt collections.\n\n142. Compensation for being denied or delayed IDR or forgiveness options.\n\n143. Assign a lump-sum settlement for harm done.\n\n144. Provide non-monetary compensation ( e.g., certificate or public acknowledgment if appropriate ).\n\n145. Provide clear, written apology.\n\n146. Agree to cover any costs I incur due to credit repair.\n\n147. Provide budget for oversight compliance.\n\n148. Offer settlement check or payment to cover all relevant taxes.\n\n149. Provide checks or payments for any garnishments, wage offsets wrongly made.\n\n150. Cover cost of verifying origin ( e.g., legal cover, document retrieval ).\n\n151. Reimburse any third-party disbursement or default fee.\n\n152. Provide my account statement free of fee for entire timeline.\n\n153. Provide zero-interest payment plan if reinstated.\n\n154. Provide retroactive forbearance credit if delay from Nelnet.\n\n155. Provide clear yearly statements going forward at no charge.\n\n156. Provide ongoing monitoring of credit report status.\n\n157. Provide guarantee that future servicing will not breach my rights.\n\n158. Supply written policy revisions and post them publicly.\n\n159. Present independent third-party audit or oversight of this case if requested.\n\n160. Produce a notarized affidavit from the employee who first opened the account file in 2009 ( or statement that no such employee exists ).\n\n161. Provide chain-of-custody logs for any physical documents ( MPNs, signed forms ) that you claim prove origination.\n\n162. Deliver a forensic image ( hash-signed ) of the database table row ( s ) that contain my account record as of each year-end 20092024.\n\n163. Produce the schema definition for the account table ( s ) that store borrower identity and loan metadata.\n\n164. Provide the DBA/DBMS logs showing the exact SQL operations that created or modified my account record.\n\n165. Provide certificate-signed hashes ( SHA-256 ) of all produced native files so integrity can be independently verified.\n\n166. Provide any OCR/scan-to-text output files for paper originals plus the raw scanned images.\n\n167. Produce proof of chain verification for any digital signature applied to origination documents.\n\n168. Produce records of any third-party identity verification vendor used ( contract + verification instance for my identity ).\n\n169. Provide results of any fraud-analytics retrospective review run against my account ( false-positive/false-negative analysis ).\n\n170. Provide the retention schedule applied to my origination documents and show whether any files were destroyed under that schedule.\n\n171. Produce log of any document destruction events for records tied to my account, with authorized approver and method.\n\n172. Provide the full version history ( diffs ) for any document that was modified ( eg MPN amendments ).\n\n173. Produce timestamped audit trail of any manual redactions applied to documents produced in discovery.\n\n174. Provide a legally-certified translation of any non-English material relied on in the origination process.\n\n175. Produce the ID verification algorithm output ( proof tokens, vendor score, acceptance threshold ) used at origination.\n\n176. Deliver the code snippet or query used to generate the account closed flag for my record, with comments.\n\n177. Provide all business rules that map detection triggers to closure outcomes, with effective dates.\n\n178. Produce copies of all training datasets used to train any ML model that flagged my account ( with sensitive PII redacted if necessary ).\n\n179. Provide model drift analyses showing performance changes of closure models since XXXX. \n\n\nXXXX. Produce a signed certification from the Chief Data Officer that no backdoor overrides were used to force this closure.\n\n181. Produce the full ticket history including internal severity codes, root cause analysis, and SLA timestamps for every support/ticket number related to my account.\n\n182. Produce a list of all service desk approvers who authorized final closure, with their approval timestamps.\n\n183. Provide the exact policy text that was presented to frontline staff when they executed the closure.\n\n184. Produce a copy of any external legal demand, court order, or subpoena that referenced my account ( if any ).\n\n185. Provide the raw logs of any automated remediation scripts executed against my account ( cron jobs, patches ).\n\n186. Produce the last three change management approvals that touched compliance decision-making systems used in my case.\n\n187. Provide the full PII access request log ( who requested access, justification, outcome ) for all access events for my file.\n\n188. Produce the complete list of IP addresses that connected to my account within 30 days prior to closure and the geolocation mapping for each.\n\n189. Provide forensic device identifiers ( device fingerprinting ) used to associate sessions to my account at time of alleged suspicious activity.\n\n190. Produce all analytic dashboards and export data that displayed my accounts risk score on each relevant date.\n\n191. Provide an independent third-party attestation that the closure workflow complied with your written procedures ( attestor name, scope ).\n\n192. Produce all redaction keys used to anonymize any produced documents so we can verify redactions were not substantive.\n\n193. Produce the auditable payroll/timecard records demonstrating how many hours staff spent investigating my case and the cost attributed.\n\n194. Provide the chain of custody and transfer records for any funds held, including bank account, ACH file IDs, settlement files.\n\n195. Produce audit logs of all exports of my data to any third party ( CSV/XML ) including recipient and purpose.\n\n196. Provide any internal legal memos assessing whether closure of a political candidates account could trigger FEC or First Amendment issues.\n\n197. Produce the list of all accounts that were closed the same day with the same reason code and the aggregate statistical justification.\n\n198. Provide a statistical false-positive rate for the closure reason code as applied in the prior 24 months.\n\n199. Produce a signed statement from the CEO or General Counsel certifying that the action was not based on political viewpoint.\n\n200. Provide copies of all external communications to vendors about my account ( email chains, portal messages ).\n\n201. Produce a formal root-cause analysis ( RCA ) for the closure decision with corrective action plan and responsible owners identified.\n\n202. Provide the escalation log showing every internal stakeholder briefed ( names/dates ) with their responses.\n\n203. Produce a redline history showing any policy text that was changed in response to past complaints about wrongful closures.\n\n204. Provide a list of all users/agents who had the authority to reverse a closure and show whether any reversal was attempted for my account.\n\n205. Produce confirmation of any hold placed on reporting to credit agencies during dispute and the start/end timestamps.\n\n206. Provide evidence that no adverse inference was drawn from my public political activity ( emails, memos showing political neutrality review ).\n\n207. Produce a list of every supervisory call ( recording or transcript ) where my case was discussed with senior management.\n\n208. Provide a corrective action metric showing percentage reduction in wrongful closures over past 12 months and link to remediation.\n\n209. Produce an offer to fund an independent audit by a mutually agreed firm ( with scope ) and agree to accept the auditors binding remediation recommendations.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-02T19:29:53.000Z","issue":"Unauthorized withdrawals or charges","sub_product":"Student loan debt relief","zip_code":"480XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"15971197","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Nelnet, Inc.","date_received":"2025-09-17T04:34:10.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Provide your governing contract with ED showing <em>what</em> Nelnet is responsible for.\n\n109. Provide FSA/ED guidance cited in that contract.\n\n110. Provide EDs written policies on loan disputes and fraud.\n\n111. Provide policy guidance on interest capitalization.\n\n112. Provide legal basis for capitalizing interest while dispute unresolved.\n\n113. Provide HEA guidance on borrower <em>rights</em>.\n\n114. Provide waiver or discharge policies and how they <em>apply</em> to unauthorized origin loans.\n\n115."]},"sort":[6.0936165,"15971197"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"5848900","_score":6.0460052,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"Based on 7 documented phone calls and text, I can show evidence that Citibank is in violation of The Federal Electronic Fund Transfer Act, specifically as it relates to Regulation E which covers these types of activities. \n\nI hereby dispute the XXXX for {$2700.00} unauthorized XXXX transfer to a XXXX XXXX and XXXX unauthorized purchase for {$240.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX  XXXX \n\nI will challenge and pursue in every possible and legitimate manner as a consumer with protection rights under the Code of Federal regulations CFR. \n\nTimelines and facts for the case : XX/XX/2022 XXXX PM ( XXXX XXXX EST ) XXXX Fraudulent charge to XXXX XXXX ( per bank statement ) See Debit card ( XXXX ) purchase by phone. Later the Service Rep from Citi bank informed me they had also gotten ahold of my ATM pin from hacking into my Citi bank account! \n\nXXXX ( XXXXXXXX XXXX EST ) Fraudulent withdrawal to XXXX {$2700.00} XXXX XXXX PAY ID : XXXX ORG ID : XXXX NAME : XXXX XXXX. A national search of all data bases has no record of this individual. I have a friend in the Federal Government who is checking their data bases and found nothing on this individual. Clearly a fraud. \n\nXXXXXXXX XXXX received text message from CitiBank. I replied No They obviously got my last 4 digits right. \n\n\n\nXXXX XXXX  answered call from Online Bnkg. Citi Bank fraud representative investigating fraud charges. Call lasted for 14 minutes. The number checks out to be a Citi Bank legitimate number. This was obviously a follow up to the above text. Either it is a legitimate Citi bank employee or someone impersonating an Citibank employee. If not a Citibank employee, they were able to hack into the Citibank number and reroute it to their number for this particular call. \n\no Before I answered any questions, I asked them to verify they were from Citibank : They replied with my last 4 digits of SS, my birthday, my address, amount they I had in the bank and last 4 transections. They even had my ATM pin which they said was used for the XXXX XXXX Fraudulent transection. This sounded strange because I am told no Citi employee has access to my pin? \no Towards the end of the conversation, they also mentioned the XXXX fraud and were trying to put a stop to it and wanted to verify that they were talking with me XXXX XXXX. \no I got suspicious with that question and hung up, saying let me call Citibank directly back. \no I called the above number XXXX and it appeared to be legitimate. ( Somehow the fraudster has hacked this Citibank number? Or this is really a legitimate Citi Bank number. ) XXXX, I called XXXX ( Citi XXXX number from back of Debit Card ). After explaining my problem they told me to call XXXX to report it. \n\n\n\nXXXX I called the number XXXX as told, They said they would text message me for verification. We spent over 18 minutes discussing my case. They then said they would send me a text. \n\n\nXXXX Citi Sent me a text message for verification XXXX got an incoming call back from Citibank ( XXXX. By now I was so confused and concerned wondering what is the real CitiBank number and or who is fraudster impersonating CitiBank. The person on the phone wanted to review my case all over again and in detail. The call lasted over 28 minutes. After I explained my situation all over again, I was told not to worry as a dispute had been filed and if it was fraudulent, I was to get my money back. \n\nXXXX called back XXXX XXXX XXXX ( number from the back of my card ). Wanted to conform that this was being investigated. This is the only number now that I trust. Citibank confirmed that my case was already under investigation. \n\n\n\n\n\nBased on the above : Citi will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the call at XXXX from XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) was not a legitimate Citibank number. If it is a legitimate number, at XXXX I had a discussion with a Citibank Fraud Rep. who said I was hit by 2 Fraud Charges, the XXXX XXXX and XXXX. In that case please send me a copy of the recording for that time stamp. If it is your number then this conversations was recorded. If it was not a legitimate Citibank number it further validates that Citibank was hit by a hacker who was impersonating the bank and using a Citibank phone number as cover while actually calling from a different fraudulent number! \nThe recording will verify that CITI bank knew at XXXX that I had fraudulently been hacked. Citi would have had the time to put a stop to the fraud that took place 14 minutes later. Whatever the case may be, whether it was or was not a Citibank representative, this is in violation of CFR. \nI was on the phone with a Citi Bank Fraud Rep from XXXX for 14 minutes ending at XXXX. This was exactly the time when Citibank recorded the posting of the XXXX withdrawal. It would have been impossible for me to make the transaction while I was on the call with Citibank. Also, since the transaction had to go through XXXX ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX, there would have to had been a time delay. It takes 5-10 minutes for a XXXX transection to go through. It was in this span of 14 minutes that the transection must have taken place. This verifies the fact that towards the end of the call the Citi rep informed me that there was a XXXX fraud. Thus a ticket was opened on the case. Citi bank knew about the fraud during the time of our call. There is no way I could have approved it personally or via text to authorize this transaction. Another Violation of the CFR Citi bank sometime on the evening of XX/XX/XXXX refunded the Dispute Number : XXXX Unauthorized purchase for {$240.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Fl XXXX They admit and acknowledge that this was fraud by this action. \n\nIt is not just a coincidence that 32 minutes later the XXXX fraud was committed. Citi Bank did not take responsibility for it. Instead, they point the finger at me. That somehow miraculously I was able to pull this off during the time of the phone call. CITI Bank admits that this was a fraudulent transection. However, Citi still denies that the next XXXX transection was not fraudulent. As an aside, no letter or explanation has been given to me or notifying me of the removal of the XXXX XXXX  charges as of XX/XX/2022 XXXX XXXX I find it quite strange that Citi will go to great lengths and post on my on line account that this XXXX fraudulent activity was denied, but made no mention at all of acknowledging the XXXX XXXX Fraud and not placing a letter in my online account portal about the XXXXXXXX issue. \n\nAll of the factors and indicators point to treachery which is a violation of CFR. It seems Citi simply wanted to reimburse the lesser amount but did not want to admit its wrongdoing for the XXXX issue. This is totally an unacceptable ploy and unfair process on Citis part. It is a blatant violation of Regulation E. \n\nI have no record, no documentation, no phone calls or IP address made to this XXXX XXXX. An IT forensic audit will not be able to show a data trail from me. Instead if we request a forensic audit of Citibanks data, it will show the trail directly from Citi to XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX that was made by treacherous fraudster which Citi will not admit. Obviously, Citi bank has vulnerabilities in their IT security if the fraudster was able to articulate to me all my confidential banking information stored with Citi. It is common knowledge that Citi has been having fraud problems with this issue and their security process and procedure is not safe from hackers. Over and over again, my historical facts on this issue shows that this transaction was fraudulent and in violation of XXXXegulation E My seven documented phone calls and text, show that my case is a proven fraudulent transaction. \n\nFraudulent transactions are covered by Regulation E. Regulation E, part of the federal Electronic Fund Transfer Act, requires banks to refund consumers for fraudulent transactions on their accounts. There is enough evidence to show that treachery was involved. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau put out a directive in XXXX, saying the law applies \" if a third party fraudulently induces a consumer into sharing account access information. '' Citi Bank Online credentials were required to perform these transfers, and the activity appears to be consistent with your normal banking activities this are the direct quotes as reason for denial of the dispute on Citibanks letter sent to me. \nMy Credentials on Citis data centers were obtained by treachery methods and means. There is enough evidence in the above to show that. To have Citi deny this dispute is absolutely egregious and in violation of the Federal Law.\n\nRegulation E lets you dispute the following types of errors : Unauthorized electronic funds transfers. Incorrect electronic funds transfers to or from your account. Omission of an electronic funds transfer from your bank statement ( Section 205.2 ( k ) ). Unauthorized electronic fund transfer is an EFT from a consumer 's account initiated by a person other than the consumer without authority to initiate the transfer and from which the consumer receives no benefit. \n\nCiti also states that my activity appears to be consistent with your normal banking activities. \nThere is nothing consistent here. I did not permit nor acknowledged to have this transfer go through with XXXX. I dont know this person. There are no records, digitally or otherwise that shows I have a connection with XXXX XXXX. Citibank just pulled out that verbiage from their stock answer and sent it to me. \n\nCitibank rep said, it was a XXXX problem over the phone. \nCiti tried to put the blame on XXXX. \nDoes the Electronic Funds Transfer Act ( EFTA ) and Regulation E cover XXXX transactions? \nYes, XXXX transactions are covered by the EFTA and Regulation E. \n\nWhat happens, then, if the consumer was tricked or forced into furnishing such access? There is an argument based on the plain language of Regulation E that since the consumer has \" furnished the access device '' to the third party, the transaction may not qualify as an unauthorized EFT. \nHowever, the official interpretation of Regulation E provides the contrary answeran unauthorized EFT10 includes any transfer initiated by a person who obtained an access device through fraud, robbery, or force.11 Comment from CFR Comment 1005.2 ( m ) -3 and 1005.2 ( m ) -4. ( CFR.. CODE OF FEDRAL REGULATIONS ) The timing and sequence of events back-to-back as delineated above, clearly indicates fraud and treachery. \nThe CPFB 's recent guidance affirms and clarifies this approach, noting that if a consumer is fraudulently induced into sharing account access with a third party, the subsequent transfer is an unauthorized EFT. This includes commonplace examples of digital fraud, including instances where a consumer receives a call from someone pretending to be a representative from the consumer 's financial institution, as well as phishing or other methods to gain access to a consumer 's computer and obtain such information. \nThe CFPB made clear that a consumer is entitled to receive the liability protections of Regulation XXXX, even if that consumer acted negligently. While there is a cogent argument that consumers should bear some responsibility for their actions, the official interpretation of Regulation E expressly provides that negligence by a consumer can not be used as the basis for imposing greater liability than is permissible under Regulation E.12 See Comment 1005.6 ( b ) -2. CFR The interpretation notes that even consumer behavior that constitutes negligence under state law, including writing the PIN on a debit card or on a piece of paper kept with the card, does not affect the consumer 's liability for unauthorized EFTs. \nFor the record, I must state that I am a XXXX XXXX retiree. Recently, I have had XXXX XXXX XXXX followed by a XXXXXXXX XXXXt, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX. I must take expensive XXXX XXXX daily for the rest of my life. These are very expensive. The above monies that Citibank refuses to take responsibility for are monies saved to pay for these XXXX. To miss even a XXXX a day will lead to XXXX XXXX  conditions and XXXX. Thus, the urgency for a quick resolution to this dispute.","date_sent_to_company":"2022-08-06T06:06:04.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"92374","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"5848900","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CITIBANK, N.A.","date_received":"2022-08-06T01:47:57.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Problem using a debit or ATM card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I hereby dispute the XXXX for {$2700.00} unauthorized XXXX transfer to a XXXX XXXX and XXXX unauthorized purchase for {$240.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX  XXXX \n\nI will challenge and pursue in every possible and legitimate manner as a consumer with protection <em>rights</em> under the Code of Federal regulations CFR. \n\n<em>Timelines</em> and facts for the case : XX/XX/2022 XXXX PM ( XXXX XXXX EST ) XXXX Fraudulent charge to XXXX XXXX ( per bank statement ) See Debit card ( XXXX ) purchase by phone."]},"sort":[6.0460052,"5848900"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13321378","_score":5.521039,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I am formally disputing the accuracy of the payment history being reported on my XXXX XXXX auto loan account # XXXX. My credit reports from Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion reflect XXXX, XXXX and XXXX late payments across several years. However, XXXX XXXX own payment records show I only missed XXXX actual payments. These isolated instances do not constitute three consecutive years of sustained delinquency especially when each of these payments were resolved within 30 days, either by a subsequent full payment or a series of large catch-up payments. The payment history provided directly by XXXX XXXX is proof of this. \n\nDespite this, XXXX XXXX has repeatedly re-aged the account, reporting it as XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and even XXXX  days late including during months when payments were made and balances were reduced. This type of reporting is misleading and violates FCRA XXXX ( b ), which mandates that all furnished data be complete and accurate. \n\nEquifax, Experian, and TransUnion have continued to publish these inaccurate and inflated delinquency statuses, even after being provided with factual evidence contradicting them. Their ongoing publication of false data along with XXXX XXXX refusal to correct it suggests not just negligence, but active collusion between the furnisher and all three credit bureaus. \n\nI reject any forthcoming statement from the credit bureaus claiming they are not responsible for the way XXXX XXXX furnishes data. Similarly, I reject XXXX XXXX assertion that it bears no responsibility for how the bureaus report its submissions. Under FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ) and XXXX, both the furnisher and the consumer reporting agencies are independently and jointly obligated to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of any information reported. \n\nThis pattern of blame-shifting, delay, and collusion has created a coordinated failure to honor federal law and protect consumer rights. All four parties XXXX XXXX, Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion are responsible for the continued reporting of inaccurate, aged, and misleading information, and I will hold each of them fully accountable for the damage this has caused. I have made every attempt for them to correct these errors. \n\nIt is beyond frustrating and frankly unacceptable that XXXX XXXX continues to deflect from the actual issue by attempting to force a phone conversation instead of correcting the false and damaging information they have furnished to the credit bureaus. This is not a customer service issue this is a legal violation. I dont need a phone call. I need the lies removed from my credit report. You do not get to drag my credit down for years, re-age missed payments that were clearly resolved, and then pretend a conversation will make it go away. This is a calculated pattern of avoidance and its part of the reason your company continues to face lawsuits and consumer protection investigations. You are willfully reporting false data, and that is a direct violation of the law. \n\nThe credit bureaus are just as complicit. Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion have failed in their legal obligation to conduct proper investigations. Instead of thoroughly reviewing my disputes they simply regurgitate the inaccurate information and mark it as verified. That is not a reinvestigation. That is negligence. \n\nThis entire process has made it painfully clear that neither the furnisher nor the bureaus are interested in accuracy or fairness only in protecting each other. Meanwhile, Im left to suffer the financial and emotional consequences of their indifference. It should not take months of fighting and regulatory complaints just to get the truth reflected on my credit. You are playing with peoples livelihoods and you are doing it without integrity, without accountability, and without any regard for the law. \n\nFix the reporting. Stop hiding. And stop pretending a phone call is an acceptable substitute for the truth. \n\nContradictions in Credit Acceptances XX/XX/XXXX Letter In its XX/XX/XXXX response to CFPB Complaint No. XXXX, XXXX XXXX asserts that its reporting has been accurate and consistent with my account activity. However, a review of their own attached payment history directly contradicts this claim. \n\nSpecifically, XXXX XXXX identifies 11 months with no recorded payments ( the year XXXX is no longer visible on my credit reports and should remain that way. Any adverse reporting from that year is now obsolete under the XXXX XXXX XXXX Acts limitations on negative information ). XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX. - That aligns with my records and confirms that : Their own records show that my account was repeatedly brought back into good standing, and yet they continued to report it as XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and even XXXX days late with the credit bureaus publishing those inflated statuses unchallenged. \n\nIn XXXX XXXX  XX/XX/XXXX response, they assert that my account was most recently furnished to the credit bureaus as Current in XX/XX/XXXX, implying that this reflects accurate and compliant reporting. However, this claim is both misleading and strategically deceptive. \n\nThe account was only marked as Current in XX/XX/XXXX because I submitted a formal dispute and complaint to the CFPB. The Current status was a system-generated response to my consumer dispute not a proactive update or correction initiated by XXXX XXXX or the credit bureaus. \n\nMore importantly, my account should have been reported as current far earlier, for multiple reasons : From XXXX through XXXX, I made consistent catch-up payments that cured delinquencies well within 30 days, yet the account was repeatedly re-aged. \nIn XX/XX/XXXX, I paid off the account in full with a final payment of {$2400.00}, covering all remaining principal, interest, and fees. At that point, the account was fully satisfied and should have immediately reflected a Paid or Current status across all three credit bureaus. \nDespite this, XXXX XXXX, Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion continued to report the account as negative and severely delinquent well into XXXX. \n\nThis not only demonstrates negligence, but reinforces the pattern of delayed corrections, avoidance of responsibility, and coordinated inaction among all parties XXXX XXXX and the credit bureaus alike. \n\nDelinquency Dispute with proven Evidence XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX ( XXXX full payments ) Reported Status : 90 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : A payment made within 30 days of the due date and another within XXXX should have prevented the account from aging beyond 60 days delinquent. Reporting 90 days late contradicts standard aging logic. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX ; XX/XX/XXXX ; and XX/XX/XXXX Reported Status : 60 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : XXXX payments were made prior to the XXXX due date and a third shortly after. These payments addressed the delinquency. Reporting 60 days late does not accurately reflect the accounts status. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX ; XX/XX/XXXX ; and XX/XX/XXXX Reported Status : 90 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : Over {$900.00} in payments were made within 45 days of the missed due date. This activity cured the delinquency, yet the account continued to be aged as 90 days past due. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX ; XX/XX/XXXX ; and XX/XX/XXXX Reported Status : 90 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : Over {$1000.00} was paid in XXXX, nearly XXXX times the monthly payment. This should have brought the account current, and reporting 90 days late is not consistent with this level of repayment. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX Reported Status : 120 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : A single month was missed and an {$800.00} payment was made within 60 days. XXXX the account to 120 days delinquent does not reflect the actual payment activity. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX Reported Status : 120 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : Payment was made within 60 days of the missed due date. The status should have been no more than XXXX or 60 days late, not XXXX. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX Reported Status : 150 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : XXXX payments totaling over {$3000.00} were made within 75 days of the due date. This level of repayment is inconsistent with a XXXX delinquency designation and should have updated the status accordingly. \n\nRebuttal to Credit Acceptances XX/XX/XXXX Response Regarding CFPB Complaint No. XXXX XXXX. Claim : Partial payments do not reset the delinquency timeline. \nThat logic is flawed when full or cumulative catch-up payments have been made. For example, in XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX full payments were madecovering the missed XXXX payment in full. Yet, XXXX XXXX still reported the account as 90 days delinquent. \nContract Evidence : Nowhere in the agreement does it define how delinquency aging should be handled with consecutive or catch-up payments. \nXXXX XXXX : Under the FCRA and XXXX XXXX guidelines, when a consumer cures past-due status, the account must not continue aging in delinquency. Re-aging it without basis is materially misleading and reportable to regulators. \n\nThis XXXX be true for minor partialsbut I did not just make partial payments ; I made full catch-up payments and in many cases multiple payments within a single month. For example : In XX/XX/XXXX, I made XXXX full payments ( {$390.00} each on XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX ), covering the missed XXXX obligation. \nDespite this, XXXX was reported as 90 days late, and XXXX and XXXX were also marked late, even though further payments were made. \nThat is not delinquency. That is re-aging. \n\nSupporting Evidence : XXXX XXXX own payment history attached to their XX/XX/XXXX response shows these payments clearly. Yet the credit report shows aged delinquencies that contradict the data they provided. This shows they either never reviewed their own data or deliberately ignored it. \n\nXXXX. Claim : The delinquency timeline for XXXX is accurate. \nAbsolutely false. Below is a breakdown using XXXX XXXX own XX/XX/XXXX records : XX/XX/XXXX : Missed XXXX : Paid {$800.00} XXXX : Missed XXXX : Paid {$600.00} XXXX : Missed XXXX : Paid {$600.00} XXXX : Paid {$2400.00} Yet from XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX, the account is reported as 90150 days late across all three bureaus. That is blatant re-aging and manufactured delinquency, directly contradicted by the data they submitted themselves. \n\nIt is not enough to say the account was reported correctly based on system entries. You must reconcile : The payment due dates The actual funds received and applied And the delinquency age reported to the credit bureaus I mapped the payment history directly against standard delinquency aging thresholds. In multiple instances including XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and the entire second half of XXXX payments were made that should have stopped delinquency from aging, yet the account was carried forward as if no payments were made. \n\nXXXX. Claim : We furnished the same information to all three credit bureaus. \nThen why is each bureau showing? \nA different number of late payments ( TransUnion : XXXX, Experian : XXXX, Equifax : XXXX ) Different statuses in the same month Either Credit Acceptance is : Sending inconsistent or ambiguous data, or The credit bureaus are failing to properly interpret and apply the information. \n\nBoth scenarios violate the FCRAs mandate for maximum possible accuracy. \n\nRebuttal to Excuses in Credit Acceptances XX/XX/XXXX Letter Preemptive Defense Based on XX/XX/XXXX Payment History In its XX/XX/XXXX response, XXXX XXXX attempted to justify the continued reporting of XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and even XXXX delinquencies. However, these excuses directly contradict the detailed payment history XXXX XXXX themselves provided on XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nBelow is a point-by-point rebuttal to anticipated and stated defenses none of which withstand scrutiny when weighed against their own documentation and obligations under federal law. \n\nXXXX. Excuse : Catch-up payments were applied to older balances and did not bring the account current Payment allocation can not be used to justify extended delinquency. The XX/XX/XXXX payment history clearly shows full and multiple payments including {$800.00}, $ XXXX, and $ XXXX made shortly after missed months. XXXX XXXX XXXX and FCRA XXXX ( b ), once the delinquency is cured, it can not legally be carried forward or re-aged. \n\nXXXX. Excuse : Our system does not automatically recalculate delinquency That is not a legal defense its an admission of noncompliance. If internal systems do not allow delinquency aging to reset after payments are made, then the system is furnishing misleading and damaging data in violation of FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ). \n\nXXXX. Excuse : The account was never fully brought current The XX/XX/XXXX letter shows that I made multiple full payments in key months, often back-to-back, and clearly enough to resolve any past-due balance. Continuing to report the account as XXXX or XXXX days late while receiving those payments is factually inaccurate and abusive. \n\nXXXX. Excuse : XXXX is valid based on days past due Even if a payment was late, the aging must reflect how many days past the contractual due date. Payments made within 3060 days can not be reported as 90150 days late. The XX/XX/XXXX payment record disproves the reported aging. \n\nXXXX. Excuse : The credit bureaus verified the data The bureaus rely on e-OSCAR, an automated dispute system that does not perform a manual review. Your XX/XX/XXXX letter, which contains the payment timeline, was not reconciled by any human reviewer at Experian, Equifax, or TransUnion. That means verification is incomplete and legally insufficient under FCRA XXXX. \n\nBottom line : The XX/XX/XXXX excuses are contradicted by the XX/XX/XXXX evidence XXXX XXXX itself submitted. These explanations are not only false they are a coordinated effort between the furnisher and credit bureaus to shift blame, delay correction, and continue furnishing false, damaging, and unlawful information about my account. \n\nProof That Missed Payments Were Cured and Re-Aging Is Improper Credit Acceptance has inaccurately reported extended delinquency ( 60150 days late ) by ignoring substantial catch-up payments that fully cured missed payments from XXXX. Below is a detailed breakdown of when payments were missed, how they were resolved, and why ongoing derogatory reporting is legally unjustified. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Missed Payment Proof of Cure : {$800.00} paid on XX/XX/XXXX Covered both XXXX and XXXX payments in full. \nEvidence : XXXX XXXX own records confirm this large payment. \nConclusion : No basis to report delinquency beyond 30 days. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Missed Payment Proof of Cure : Full payments made in : XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Evidence : Consecutive full monthly payments following XXXX resolve the delinquency. \nConclusion : Account was brought current and stayed current no justification for ongoing derogatory reporting. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX Missed Payments Proof of Cure : XX/XX/XXXX : {$390.00} ( full payment ) XX/XX/XXXX : {$390.00} ( full payment ) XX/XX/XXXX : {$390.00} XX/XX/XXXX : {$300.00} XX/XX/XXXX : {$390.00} Total Paid in 90 Days : Over {$1400.00} Evidence : Payment history from XX/XX/XXXX Credit Acceptance letter Conclusion : XXXX and XXXX delinquencies were fully cured within 60 days account should have been marked current. \n\nAnd lets be clear your companys mishandling of XXXX hardship protections makes your reporting even more egregious. In your own XX/XX/XXXX letter, you confirmed that my account was removed from COVID Protected Status on XX/XX/XXXX despite the fact that I made XXXX full payments in XXXX, on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. Yet instead of acknowledging that I resumed payment in good faith, you immediately marked my account as 90 days late, as if no effort had been made at all. \n\nYou have no valid justification for removing me from XXXX relief in the first place even if I missed payments in XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, I was in constant communication with your customer service team, notifying your company of my ongoing hardship and intent to resolve the balance. That communication alone should have preserved my protection status or at the very least prevented the account from being harshly penalized. But instead, you weaponized the removal by re-aging my account and resuming aggressive negative reporting and immediately marked my account as 90 days late in XXXX, as if no payments had been made at all. \n\nUnder the CARES Act and updated FCRA guidance, consumers granted COVID accommodations were not to be penalized with delinquent reporting during or immediately after the relief period, especially when payments resumed in good faith. Your decision to end my protection XXXX day before a full payment and then backdate a XXXX delinquency is not just inaccurate, its abusive and intentionally deceptive. It contradicts your stated policies, violates federal law, and shows a clear intent to punish rather than support consumers during a national crisis. \n\nYou had the power and the documentation to report this account accurately but you chose to weaponize the end of XXXX relief to re-age delinquencies and damage my credit. \n\nXXXX XXXX & Legal Implications These payments clearly cured each delinquency within the XXXX thresholds ( 3060 days ). \nContinuing to report these periods as XXXX, XXXX, or 150 days late is a violation of FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ) and XXXX XXXX standards. \nThis pattern constitutes improper re-aging and furnishes a materially misleading credit profile. \n\nAll supporting payment records were disclosed in XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX response, confirming the timeline above. Any attempt to link XXXX delinquencies to these resolved periods is both factually unsupported and legally indefensible. \n\nAdditional Violations and Concerns : Retaliation : XXXX XXXX restricted my online access to payment records after I filed complaints. I was unable to view my remaining balance, payment activity, or due dates. Thats retaliatory and unethical. \nDismissiveness : Instead of properly investigating, XXXX XXXX legal team simply repeats generic responses and pushes me to call themrather than correcting documented, proven errors. \nMisleading the CFPB : By refusing to address payment-by-payment discrepancies and brushing off full settlement activity, XXXX XXXX is submitting XXXX XXXX responses to a federal agency. \nImpact : This has sabotaged my XXXX XXXX for XXXX years, damaged my credibility with lenders, and blocked me from refinancing and auto purchases. My account has XXXX payment leftyet my report looks worse than someone in active default. \nCall for XXXX : As a consumer, I should not have to fight this hard to correct obvious reporting failures. The credit bureaus should not allow auto-aging to persist for years unchecked. Every year from XXXX to XXXX should be manually reviewed and corrected immediately. \n\nPreemptive Rebuttal : We Do Not Recalculate Delinquency Is Not a Legal Defense Should Credit Acceptance attempt to claim that they do not recalculate balances or delinquency aging once a payment is missed, I want to make it clear that such a policy if true would not absolve them of responsibility under federal law. \n\nXXXX. XXXX XXXX Standards Require Accurate, Updated Reporting : The XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX XXXX guidelines make clear that when a consumer cures a delinquency even through staggered or large catch-up payments furnishers are obligated to adjust the delinquency status accordingly. Continuing to report an account as XXXX, XXXX, or 150 days late after such payments is materially misleading and violates data furnishing standards. \n\nXXXX. Not Recalculating Is a Breach of FCRA Obligations : Even if XXXX XXXX has an internal policy of not recalculating once delinquency begins, that policy does not override FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ), which requires the furnishing of accurate and complete information. XXXX prolonged delinquency while ignoring substantial payments that resolved the delinquent amount is both deceptive and damaging. \n\nXXXX. Internal Policies Can not Override Legal Requirements : A companys refusal to update or recalculate based on new payments is not a defense it is noncompliance. The Fair Credit Reporting Act mandates accurate and fair credit reporting, regardless of internal system limitations or preferences. \n\nXXXX. Harm from Failure to Recalculate : This type of rigid, one-directional reporting has falsely inflated the severity of my credit history, suppressed my score, and caused real-world harm in the form of loan denials and unfavorable financing terms despite regular and significant payments. \n\nIf XXXX XXXX or the credit bureaus assert this reasoning as a defense, I will treat it as a willful violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and pursue additional complaints with federal and state regulators accordingly. \n\nFinal Demand for Full Reinvestigation ( XXXX ) I am formally requesting a full and manual reinvestigation of my XXXX XXXX tradeline covering the period from XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX. This investigation must include : 1. A month-by-month reconciliation of reported delinquency status against actual payments made, using the payment history provided by XXXX XXXX. \n2. Correction or deletion of all inaccurately re-aged delinquencies where payments were made or delinquencies were cured within 30 days. \n3. Removal of all excessive XXXX delinquency entries that contradict both the factual payment activity and XXXX XXXX standards. \n4. Confirmation that this investigation was conducted outside of e-OSCAR and involved manual human review, as required under FCRA XXXX. \n\nAt this point, I only have XXXX payment left on this account, yet my credit reports reflect over XXXX years of inflated, false derogatory status. This is not an oversight this is systemic, intentional, and damaging. \n\nCollective Failure and Collusion by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX has made it clear in its written response that it disclaims responsibility for how this data appears on my reports, placing blame on the credit bureaus. In turn, Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion claim to simply report what is furnished. \n\nThis finger-pointing is unacceptable. \nUnder FCRA XXXX and XXXX, both furnishers and CRAs are independently responsible for the accuracy and integrity of the data they report or publish. This means : XXXX XXXX is responsible for what it submits. \nThe credit bureaus are responsible for verifying, reviewing, and publishing that data accurately. \n\nBy allowing these inaccuracies to persist knowingly all parties are complicit. \n\nThis is no longer a matter of mere error. This is a coordinated failure to correct false reporting, despite documentation, disputes, and federal complaints. And in that, XXXX XXXX, Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion are colluding knowingly and willfully to maintain a damaging, false credit narrative that is unsupported by the actual payment history. \n\nWhat This Has Cost Me Financial, Personal, and Long-Term Harm The ongoing false reporting and failure to correct inaccurate delinquency data has had a profound and devastating impact on nearly every aspect of my financial stability and personal life. This is not just a matter of numbers on a report this has been a sustained attack on my ability to function financially, and it has come with measurable, lasting harm. \nI have been flagged as a credit risk across multiple platforms and lender systems due to the inflated number of severe delinquencies reported by XXXX XXXX and published by Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion. \nI have been denied financing for housing, including rejection from rental properties and credit-based apartment applications, despite having stable income and the means to pay. \nI have been denied auto loans and refinancing, even after making over XXXX payments on time and ultimately paying the account in full. \nI have had to accept higher interest rates, larger security deposits, and unfavorable contract terms for basic financial services due to the false impression created by this reporting. \nI have spent over {$3000.00} out-of-pocket covering inflated security deposits, upfront insurance costs, and denied credit-based offers that would have otherwise reduced my financial burden. \nI have had to delay life plans including seeking new housing and upgrading my vehicle due to credit-related denials and hesitations from lenders. \nIve experienced emotional distress, humiliation, and exhaustion from having to explain these errors repeatedly to landlords, lenders, and financial institutions and from having to fight so hard just to have my truthful history reflected. \n\nAll of this has occurred despite my continued good faith efforts to maintain the account, including making full payments, catch-up payments, and ultimately paying off the loan entirely. \n\nThis is not only negligent it is punitive, abusive, and predatory. \n\nIt is a direct violation of : The Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) for the repeated furnishing and publication of inaccurate, outdated, and misleading information. \nXXXX XXXX standards for failing to recalculate or update delinquency aging after payments. \nUDAAP under the Consumer Financial XXXX XXXX for engaging in deceptive and abusive practices that trap consumers in falsely negative credit positions. \n\nI am not seeking special treatment I am demanding lawful, accurate treatment. And I will hold each party accountable for the personal, financial, and emotional damage this has caused. You can not continue to profit from inaccurate reporting, destroy my financial standing, and shift blame while refusing to act. This is my final demand for full resolution and correction. \n\nThe record is clear. The data is yours. The error is deliberate. The harm is real.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-05-03T22:15:34.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"483XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13321378","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-05-03T22:15:06.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Account information incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This is a calculated pattern of avoidance and its part of the reason your company continues to face lawsuits and consumer protection <em>investigations</em>. You are willfully reporting false data, and that is a direct violation of the law. \n\nThe credit bureaus are just as complicit. Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion have failed in their legal obligation to conduct proper <em>investigations</em>."]},"sort":[5.521039,"13321378"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13318699","_score":5.521039,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I am formally disputing the accuracy of the payment history being reported on my XXXX XXXX auto loan account # XXXX. My credit reports from Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion reflect XXXX, XXXX and XXXX late payments across several years. However, XXXX XXXX own payment records show I only missed XXXX actual payments. These isolated instances do not constitute three consecutive years of sustained delinquency especially when each of these payments were resolved within 30 days, either by a subsequent full payment or a series of large catch-up payments. The payment history provided directly by XXXX XXXX is proof of this. \n\nDespite this, XXXX XXXX has repeatedly re-aged the account, reporting it as XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and even XXXX  days late including during months when payments were made and balances were reduced. This type of reporting is misleading and violates FCRA XXXX ( b ), which mandates that all furnished data be complete and accurate. \n\nEquifax, Experian, and TransUnion have continued to publish these inaccurate and inflated delinquency statuses, even after being provided with factual evidence contradicting them. Their ongoing publication of false data along with XXXX XXXX refusal to correct it suggests not just negligence, but active collusion between the furnisher and all three credit bureaus. \n\nI reject any forthcoming statement from the credit bureaus claiming they are not responsible for the way XXXX XXXX furnishes data. Similarly, I reject XXXX XXXX assertion that it bears no responsibility for how the bureaus report its submissions. Under FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ) and XXXX, both the furnisher and the consumer reporting agencies are independently and jointly obligated to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of any information reported. \n\nThis pattern of blame-shifting, delay, and collusion has created a coordinated failure to honor federal law and protect consumer rights. All four parties XXXX XXXX, Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion are responsible for the continued reporting of inaccurate, aged, and misleading information, and I will hold each of them fully accountable for the damage this has caused. I have made every attempt for them to correct these errors. \n\nIt is beyond frustrating and frankly unacceptable that XXXX XXXX continues to deflect from the actual issue by attempting to force a phone conversation instead of correcting the false and damaging information they have furnished to the credit bureaus. This is not a customer service issue this is a legal violation. I dont need a phone call. I need the lies removed from my credit report. You do not get to drag my credit down for years, re-age missed payments that were clearly resolved, and then pretend a conversation will make it go away. This is a calculated pattern of avoidance and its part of the reason your company continues to face lawsuits and consumer protection investigations. You are willfully reporting false data, and that is a direct violation of the law. \n\nThe credit bureaus are just as complicit. Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion have failed in their legal obligation to conduct proper investigations. Instead of thoroughly reviewing my disputes they simply regurgitate the inaccurate information and mark it as verified. That is not a reinvestigation. That is negligence. \n\nThis entire process has made it painfully clear that neither the furnisher nor the bureaus are interested in accuracy or fairness only in protecting each other. Meanwhile, Im left to suffer the financial and emotional consequences of their indifference. It should not take months of fighting and regulatory complaints just to get the truth reflected on my credit. You are playing with peoples livelihoods and you are doing it without integrity, without accountability, and without any regard for the law. \n\nFix the reporting. Stop hiding. And stop pretending a phone call is an acceptable substitute for the truth. \n\nContradictions in Credit Acceptances XX/XX/XXXX Letter In its XX/XX/XXXX response to CFPB Complaint No. XXXX, XXXX XXXX asserts that its reporting has been accurate and consistent with my account activity. However, a review of their own attached payment history directly contradicts this claim. \n\nSpecifically, XXXX XXXX identifies 11 months with no recorded payments ( the year XXXX is no longer visible on my credit reports and should remain that way. Any adverse reporting from that year is now obsolete under the XXXX XXXX XXXX Acts limitations on negative information ). XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX. - That aligns with my records and confirms that : Their own records show that my account was repeatedly brought back into good standing, and yet they continued to report it as XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and even XXXX days late with the credit bureaus publishing those inflated statuses unchallenged. \n\nIn XXXX XXXX  XX/XX/XXXX response, they assert that my account was most recently furnished to the credit bureaus as Current in XX/XX/XXXX, implying that this reflects accurate and compliant reporting. However, this claim is both misleading and strategically deceptive. \n\nThe account was only marked as Current in XX/XX/XXXX because I submitted a formal dispute and complaint to the CFPB. The Current status was a system-generated response to my consumer dispute not a proactive update or correction initiated by XXXX XXXX or the credit bureaus. \n\nMore importantly, my account should have been reported as current far earlier, for multiple reasons : From XXXX through XXXX, I made consistent catch-up payments that cured delinquencies well within 30 days, yet the account was repeatedly re-aged. \nIn XX/XX/XXXX, I paid off the account in full with a final payment of {$2400.00}, covering all remaining principal, interest, and fees. At that point, the account was fully satisfied and should have immediately reflected a Paid or Current status across all three credit bureaus. \nDespite this, XXXX XXXX, Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion continued to report the account as negative and severely delinquent well into XXXX. \n\nThis not only demonstrates negligence, but reinforces the pattern of delayed corrections, avoidance of responsibility, and coordinated inaction among all parties XXXX XXXX and the credit bureaus alike. \n\nDelinquency Dispute with proven Evidence XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX ( XXXX full payments ) Reported Status : 90 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : A payment made within 30 days of the due date and another within XXXX should have prevented the account from aging beyond 60 days delinquent. Reporting 90 days late contradicts standard aging logic. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX ; XX/XX/XXXX ; and XX/XX/XXXX Reported Status : 60 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : XXXX payments were made prior to the XXXX due date and a third shortly after. These payments addressed the delinquency. Reporting 60 days late does not accurately reflect the accounts status. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX ; XX/XX/XXXX ; and XX/XX/XXXX Reported Status : 90 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : Over {$900.00} in payments were made within 45 days of the missed due date. This activity cured the delinquency, yet the account continued to be aged as 90 days past due. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX ; XX/XX/XXXX ; and XX/XX/XXXX Reported Status : 90 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : Over {$1000.00} was paid in XXXX, nearly XXXX times the monthly payment. This should have brought the account current, and reporting 90 days late is not consistent with this level of repayment. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX Reported Status : 120 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : A single month was missed and an {$800.00} payment was made within 60 days. XXXX the account to 120 days delinquent does not reflect the actual payment activity. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX Reported Status : 120 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : Payment was made within 60 days of the missed due date. The status should have been no more than XXXX or 60 days late, not XXXX. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX Reported Status : 150 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : XXXX payments totaling over {$3000.00} were made within 75 days of the due date. This level of repayment is inconsistent with a XXXX delinquency designation and should have updated the status accordingly. \n\nRebuttal to Credit Acceptances XX/XX/XXXX Response Regarding CFPB Complaint No. XXXX XXXX. Claim : Partial payments do not reset the delinquency timeline. \nThat logic is flawed when full or cumulative catch-up payments have been made. For example, in XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX full payments were madecovering the missed XXXX payment in full. Yet, XXXX XXXX still reported the account as 90 days delinquent. \nContract Evidence : Nowhere in the agreement does it define how delinquency aging should be handled with consecutive or catch-up payments. \nXXXX XXXX : Under the FCRA and XXXX XXXX guidelines, when a consumer cures past-due status, the account must not continue aging in delinquency. Re-aging it without basis is materially misleading and reportable to regulators. \n\nThis XXXX be true for minor partialsbut I did not just make partial payments ; I made full catch-up payments and in many cases multiple payments within a single month. For example : In XX/XX/XXXX, I made XXXX full payments ( {$390.00} each on XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX ), covering the missed XXXX obligation. \nDespite this, XXXX was reported as 90 days late, and XXXX and XXXX were also marked late, even though further payments were made. \nThat is not delinquency. That is re-aging. \n\nSupporting Evidence : XXXX XXXX own payment history attached to their XX/XX/XXXX response shows these payments clearly. Yet the credit report shows aged delinquencies that contradict the data they provided. This shows they either never reviewed their own data or deliberately ignored it. \n\nXXXX. Claim : The delinquency timeline for XXXX is accurate. \nAbsolutely false. Below is a breakdown using XXXX XXXX own XX/XX/XXXX records : XX/XX/XXXX : Missed XXXX : Paid {$800.00} XXXX : Missed XXXX : Paid {$600.00} XXXX : Missed XXXX : Paid {$600.00} XXXX : Paid {$2400.00} Yet from XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX, the account is reported as 90150 days late across all three bureaus. That is blatant re-aging and manufactured delinquency, directly contradicted by the data they submitted themselves. \n\nIt is not enough to say the account was reported correctly based on system entries. You must reconcile : The payment due dates The actual funds received and applied And the delinquency age reported to the credit bureaus I mapped the payment history directly against standard delinquency aging thresholds. In multiple instances including XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and the entire second half of XXXX payments were made that should have stopped delinquency from aging, yet the account was carried forward as if no payments were made. \n\nXXXX. Claim : We furnished the same information to all three credit bureaus. \nThen why is each bureau showing? \nA different number of late payments ( TransUnion : XXXX, Experian : XXXX, Equifax : XXXX ) Different statuses in the same month Either Credit Acceptance is : Sending inconsistent or ambiguous data, or The credit bureaus are failing to properly interpret and apply the information. \n\nBoth scenarios violate the FCRAs mandate for maximum possible accuracy. \n\nRebuttal to Excuses in Credit Acceptances XX/XX/XXXX Letter Preemptive Defense Based on XX/XX/XXXX Payment History In its XX/XX/XXXX response, XXXX XXXX attempted to justify the continued reporting of XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and even XXXX delinquencies. However, these excuses directly contradict the detailed payment history XXXX XXXX themselves provided on XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nBelow is a point-by-point rebuttal to anticipated and stated defenses none of which withstand scrutiny when weighed against their own documentation and obligations under federal law. \n\nXXXX. Excuse : Catch-up payments were applied to older balances and did not bring the account current Payment allocation can not be used to justify extended delinquency. The XX/XX/XXXX payment history clearly shows full and multiple payments including {$800.00}, $ XXXX, and $ XXXX made shortly after missed months. XXXX XXXX XXXX and FCRA XXXX ( b ), once the delinquency is cured, it can not legally be carried forward or re-aged. \n\nXXXX. Excuse : Our system does not automatically recalculate delinquency That is not a legal defense its an admission of noncompliance. If internal systems do not allow delinquency aging to reset after payments are made, then the system is furnishing misleading and damaging data in violation of FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ). \n\nXXXX. Excuse : The account was never fully brought current The XX/XX/XXXX letter shows that I made multiple full payments in key months, often back-to-back, and clearly enough to resolve any past-due balance. Continuing to report the account as XXXX or XXXX days late while receiving those payments is factually inaccurate and abusive. \n\nXXXX. Excuse : XXXX is valid based on days past due Even if a payment was late, the aging must reflect how many days past the contractual due date. Payments made within 3060 days can not be reported as 90150 days late. The XX/XX/XXXX payment record disproves the reported aging. \n\nXXXX. Excuse : The credit bureaus verified the data The bureaus rely on e-OSCAR, an automated dispute system that does not perform a manual review. Your XX/XX/XXXX letter, which contains the payment timeline, was not reconciled by any human reviewer at Experian, Equifax, or TransUnion. That means verification is incomplete and legally insufficient under FCRA XXXX. \n\nBottom line : The XX/XX/XXXX excuses are contradicted by the XX/XX/XXXX evidence XXXX XXXX itself submitted. These explanations are not only false they are a coordinated effort between the furnisher and credit bureaus to shift blame, delay correction, and continue furnishing false, damaging, and unlawful information about my account. \n\nProof That Missed Payments Were Cured and Re-Aging Is Improper Credit Acceptance has inaccurately reported extended delinquency ( 60150 days late ) by ignoring substantial catch-up payments that fully cured missed payments from XXXX. Below is a detailed breakdown of when payments were missed, how they were resolved, and why ongoing derogatory reporting is legally unjustified. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Missed Payment Proof of Cure : {$800.00} paid on XX/XX/XXXX Covered both XXXX and XXXX payments in full. \nEvidence : XXXX XXXX own records confirm this large payment. \nConclusion : No basis to report delinquency beyond 30 days. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Missed Payment Proof of Cure : Full payments made in : XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Evidence : Consecutive full monthly payments following XXXX resolve the delinquency. \nConclusion : Account was brought current and stayed current no justification for ongoing derogatory reporting. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX Missed Payments Proof of Cure : XX/XX/XXXX : {$390.00} ( full payment ) XX/XX/XXXX : {$390.00} ( full payment ) XX/XX/XXXX : {$390.00} XX/XX/XXXX : {$300.00} XX/XX/XXXX : {$390.00} Total Paid in 90 Days : Over {$1400.00} Evidence : Payment history from XX/XX/XXXX Credit Acceptance letter Conclusion : XXXX and XXXX delinquencies were fully cured within 60 days account should have been marked current. \n\nAnd lets be clear your companys mishandling of XXXX hardship protections makes your reporting even more egregious. In your own XX/XX/XXXX letter, you confirmed that my account was removed from COVID Protected Status on XX/XX/XXXX despite the fact that I made XXXX full payments in XXXX, on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. Yet instead of acknowledging that I resumed payment in good faith, you immediately marked my account as 90 days late, as if no effort had been made at all. \n\nYou have no valid justification for removing me from XXXX relief in the first place even if I missed payments in XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, I was in constant communication with your customer service team, notifying your company of my ongoing hardship and intent to resolve the balance. That communication alone should have preserved my protection status or at the very least prevented the account from being harshly penalized. But instead, you weaponized the removal by re-aging my account and resuming aggressive negative reporting and immediately marked my account as 90 days late in XXXX, as if no payments had been made at all. \n\nUnder the CARES Act and updated FCRA guidance, consumers granted COVID accommodations were not to be penalized with delinquent reporting during or immediately after the relief period, especially when payments resumed in good faith. Your decision to end my protection XXXX day before a full payment and then backdate a XXXX delinquency is not just inaccurate, its abusive and intentionally deceptive. It contradicts your stated policies, violates federal law, and shows a clear intent to punish rather than support consumers during a national crisis. \n\nYou had the power and the documentation to report this account accurately but you chose to weaponize the end of XXXX relief to re-age delinquencies and damage my credit. \n\nXXXX XXXX & Legal Implications These payments clearly cured each delinquency within the XXXX thresholds ( 3060 days ). \nContinuing to report these periods as XXXX, XXXX, or 150 days late is a violation of FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ) and XXXX XXXX standards. \nThis pattern constitutes improper re-aging and furnishes a materially misleading credit profile. \n\nAll supporting payment records were disclosed in XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX response, confirming the timeline above. Any attempt to link XXXX delinquencies to these resolved periods is both factually unsupported and legally indefensible. \n\nAdditional Violations and Concerns : Retaliation : XXXX XXXX restricted my online access to payment records after I filed complaints. I was unable to view my remaining balance, payment activity, or due dates. Thats retaliatory and unethical. \nDismissiveness : Instead of properly investigating, XXXX XXXX legal team simply repeats generic responses and pushes me to call themrather than correcting documented, proven errors. \nMisleading the CFPB : By refusing to address payment-by-payment discrepancies and brushing off full settlement activity, XXXX XXXX is submitting XXXX XXXX responses to a federal agency. \nImpact : This has sabotaged my XXXX XXXX for XXXX years, damaged my credibility with lenders, and blocked me from refinancing and auto purchases. My account has XXXX payment leftyet my report looks worse than someone in active default. \nCall for XXXX : As a consumer, I should not have to fight this hard to correct obvious reporting failures. The credit bureaus should not allow auto-aging to persist for years unchecked. Every year from XXXX to XXXX should be manually reviewed and corrected immediately. \n\nPreemptive Rebuttal : We Do Not Recalculate Delinquency Is Not a Legal Defense Should Credit Acceptance attempt to claim that they do not recalculate balances or delinquency aging once a payment is missed, I want to make it clear that such a policy if true would not absolve them of responsibility under federal law. \n\nXXXX. XXXX XXXX Standards Require Accurate, Updated Reporting : The XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX XXXX guidelines make clear that when a consumer cures a delinquency even through staggered or large catch-up payments furnishers are obligated to adjust the delinquency status accordingly. Continuing to report an account as XXXX, XXXX, or 150 days late after such payments is materially misleading and violates data furnishing standards. \n\nXXXX. Not Recalculating Is a Breach of FCRA Obligations : Even if XXXX XXXX has an internal policy of not recalculating once delinquency begins, that policy does not override FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ), which requires the furnishing of accurate and complete information. XXXX prolonged delinquency while ignoring substantial payments that resolved the delinquent amount is both deceptive and damaging. \n\nXXXX. Internal Policies Can not Override Legal Requirements : A companys refusal to update or recalculate based on new payments is not a defense it is noncompliance. The Fair Credit Reporting Act mandates accurate and fair credit reporting, regardless of internal system limitations or preferences. \n\nXXXX. Harm from Failure to Recalculate : This type of rigid, one-directional reporting has falsely inflated the severity of my credit history, suppressed my score, and caused real-world harm in the form of loan denials and unfavorable financing terms despite regular and significant payments. \n\nIf XXXX XXXX or the credit bureaus assert this reasoning as a defense, I will treat it as a willful violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and pursue additional complaints with federal and state regulators accordingly. \n\nFinal Demand for Full Reinvestigation ( XXXX ) I am formally requesting a full and manual reinvestigation of my XXXX XXXX tradeline covering the period from XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX. This investigation must include : 1. A month-by-month reconciliation of reported delinquency status against actual payments made, using the payment history provided by XXXX XXXX. \n2. Correction or deletion of all inaccurately re-aged delinquencies where payments were made or delinquencies were cured within 30 days. \n3. Removal of all excessive XXXX delinquency entries that contradict both the factual payment activity and XXXX XXXX standards. \n4. Confirmation that this investigation was conducted outside of e-OSCAR and involved manual human review, as required under FCRA XXXX. \n\nAt this point, I only have XXXX payment left on this account, yet my credit reports reflect over XXXX years of inflated, false derogatory status. This is not an oversight this is systemic, intentional, and damaging. \n\nCollective Failure and Collusion by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX has made it clear in its written response that it disclaims responsibility for how this data appears on my reports, placing blame on the credit bureaus. In turn, Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion claim to simply report what is furnished. \n\nThis finger-pointing is unacceptable. \nUnder FCRA XXXX and XXXX, both furnishers and CRAs are independently responsible for the accuracy and integrity of the data they report or publish. This means : XXXX XXXX is responsible for what it submits. \nThe credit bureaus are responsible for verifying, reviewing, and publishing that data accurately. \n\nBy allowing these inaccuracies to persist knowingly all parties are complicit. \n\nThis is no longer a matter of mere error. This is a coordinated failure to correct false reporting, despite documentation, disputes, and federal complaints. And in that, XXXX XXXX, Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion are colluding knowingly and willfully to maintain a damaging, false credit narrative that is unsupported by the actual payment history. \n\nWhat This Has Cost Me Financial, Personal, and Long-Term Harm The ongoing false reporting and failure to correct inaccurate delinquency data has had a profound and devastating impact on nearly every aspect of my financial stability and personal life. This is not just a matter of numbers on a report this has been a sustained attack on my ability to function financially, and it has come with measurable, lasting harm. \nI have been flagged as a credit risk across multiple platforms and lender systems due to the inflated number of severe delinquencies reported by XXXX XXXX and published by Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion. \nI have been denied financing for housing, including rejection from rental properties and credit-based apartment applications, despite having stable income and the means to pay. \nI have been denied auto loans and refinancing, even after making over XXXX payments on time and ultimately paying the account in full. \nI have had to accept higher interest rates, larger security deposits, and unfavorable contract terms for basic financial services due to the false impression created by this reporting. \nI have spent over {$3000.00} out-of-pocket covering inflated security deposits, upfront insurance costs, and denied credit-based offers that would have otherwise reduced my financial burden. \nI have had to delay life plans including seeking new housing and upgrading my vehicle due to credit-related denials and hesitations from lenders. \nIve experienced emotional distress, humiliation, and exhaustion from having to explain these errors repeatedly to landlords, lenders, and financial institutions and from having to fight so hard just to have my truthful history reflected. \n\nAll of this has occurred despite my continued good faith efforts to maintain the account, including making full payments, catch-up payments, and ultimately paying off the loan entirely. \n\nThis is not only negligent it is punitive, abusive, and predatory. \n\nIt is a direct violation of : The Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) for the repeated furnishing and publication of inaccurate, outdated, and misleading information. \nXXXX XXXX standards for failing to recalculate or update delinquency aging after payments. \nUDAAP under the Consumer Financial XXXX XXXX for engaging in deceptive and abusive practices that trap consumers in falsely negative credit positions. \n\nI am not seeking special treatment I am demanding lawful, accurate treatment. And I will hold each party accountable for the personal, financial, and emotional damage this has caused. You can not continue to profit from inaccurate reporting, destroy my financial standing, and shift blame while refusing to act. This is my final demand for full resolution and correction. \n\nThe record is clear. The data is yours. The error is deliberate. The harm is real.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-05-03T22:15:30.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"483XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13318699","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-05-03T22:15:06.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Account information incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This is a calculated pattern of avoidance and its part of the reason your company continues to face lawsuits and consumer protection <em>investigations</em>. You are willfully reporting false data, and that is a direct violation of the law. \n\nThe credit bureaus are just as complicit. Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion have failed in their legal obligation to conduct proper <em>investigations</em>."]},"sort":[5.521039,"13318699"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13321520","_score":5.5144453,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I am formally disputing the accuracy of the payment history being reported on my XXXX XXXX auto loan account # XXXX. My credit reports from Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion reflect XXXX, XXXX and XXXX late payments across several years. However, XXXX XXXX own payment records show I only missed XXXX actual payments. These isolated instances do not constitute three consecutive years of sustained delinquency especially when each of these payments were resolved within 30 days, either by a subsequent full payment or a series of large catch-up payments. The payment history provided directly by XXXX XXXX is proof of this. \n\nDespite this, XXXX XXXX has repeatedly re-aged the account, reporting it as XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and even XXXX  days late including during months when payments were made and balances were reduced. This type of reporting is misleading and violates FCRA XXXX ( b ), which mandates that all furnished data be complete and accurate. \n\nEquifax, Experian, and TransUnion have continued to publish these inaccurate and inflated delinquency statuses, even after being provided with factual evidence contradicting them. Their ongoing publication of false data along with XXXX XXXX refusal to correct it suggests not just negligence, but active collusion between the furnisher and all three credit bureaus. \n\nI reject any forthcoming statement from the credit bureaus claiming they are not responsible for the way XXXX XXXX furnishes data. Similarly, I reject XXXX XXXX assertion that it bears no responsibility for how the bureaus report its submissions. Under FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ) and XXXX, both the furnisher and the consumer reporting agencies are independently and jointly obligated to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of any information reported. \n\nThis pattern of blame-shifting, delay, and collusion has created a coordinated failure to honor federal law and protect consumer rights. All four parties XXXX XXXX, Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion are responsible for the continued reporting of inaccurate, aged, and misleading information, and I will hold each of them fully accountable for the damage this has caused. I have made every attempt for them to correct these errors. \n\nIt is beyond frustrating and frankly unacceptable that XXXX XXXX continues to deflect from the actual issue by attempting to force a phone conversation instead of correcting the false and damaging information they have furnished to the credit bureaus. This is not a customer service issue this is a legal violation. I dont need a phone call. I need the lies removed from my credit report. You do not get to drag my credit down for years, re-age missed payments that were clearly resolved, and then pretend a conversation will make it go away. This is a calculated pattern of avoidance and its part of the reason your company continues to face lawsuits and consumer protection investigations. You are willfully reporting false data, and that is a direct violation of the law. \n\nThe credit bureaus are just as complicit. Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion have failed in their legal obligation to conduct proper investigations. Instead of thoroughly reviewing my disputes they simply regurgitate the inaccurate information and mark it as verified. That is not a reinvestigation. That is negligence. \n\nThis entire process has made it painfully clear that neither the furnisher nor the bureaus are interested in accuracy or fairness only in protecting each other. Meanwhile, Im left to suffer the financial and emotional consequences of their indifference. It should not take months of fighting and regulatory complaints just to get the truth reflected on my credit. You are playing with peoples livelihoods and you are doing it without integrity, without accountability, and without any regard for the law. \n\nFix the reporting. Stop hiding. And stop pretending a phone call is an acceptable substitute for the truth. \n\nContradictions in Credit Acceptances XX/XX/XXXX Letter In its XX/XX/XXXX response to CFPB Complaint No. XXXX, XXXX XXXX asserts that its reporting has been accurate and consistent with my account activity. However, a review of their own attached payment history directly contradicts this claim. \n\nSpecifically, XXXX XXXX identifies 11 months with no recorded payments ( the year XXXX is no longer visible on my credit reports and should remain that way. Any adverse reporting from that year is now obsolete under the XXXX XXXX XXXX Acts limitations on negative information ). XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX. - That aligns with my records and confirms that : Their own records show that my account was repeatedly brought back into good standing, and yet they continued to report it as XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and even XXXX days late with the credit bureaus publishing those inflated statuses unchallenged. \n\nIn XXXX XXXX  XX/XX/XXXX response, they assert that my account was most recently furnished to the credit bureaus as Current in XX/XX/XXXX, implying that this reflects accurate and compliant reporting. However, this claim is both misleading and strategically deceptive. \n\nThe account was only marked as Current in XX/XX/XXXX because I submitted a formal dispute and complaint to the CFPB. The Current status was a system-generated response to my consumer dispute not a proactive update or correction initiated by XXXX XXXX or the credit bureaus. \n\nMore importantly, my account should have been reported as current far earlier, for multiple reasons : From XXXX through XXXX, I made consistent catch-up payments that cured delinquencies well within 30 days, yet the account was repeatedly re-aged. \nIn XX/XX/XXXX, I paid off the account in full with a final payment of {$2400.00}, covering all remaining principal, interest, and fees. At that point, the account was fully satisfied and should have immediately reflected a Paid or Current status across all three credit bureaus. \nDespite this, XXXX XXXX, Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion continued to report the account as negative and severely delinquent well into XXXX. \n\nThis not only demonstrates negligence, but reinforces the pattern of delayed corrections, avoidance of responsibility, and coordinated inaction among all parties XXXX XXXX and the credit bureaus alike. \n\nDelinquency Dispute with proven Evidence XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX ( XXXX full payments ) Reported Status : 90 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : A payment made within 30 days of the due date and another within XXXX should have prevented the account from aging beyond 60 days delinquent. Reporting 90 days late contradicts standard aging logic. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX ; XX/XX/XXXX ; and XX/XX/XXXX Reported Status : 60 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : XXXX payments were made prior to the XXXX due date and a third shortly after. These payments addressed the delinquency. Reporting 60 days late does not accurately reflect the accounts status. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX ; XX/XX/XXXX ; and XX/XX/XXXX Reported Status : 90 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : Over {$900.00} in payments were made within 45 days of the missed due date. This activity cured the delinquency, yet the account continued to be aged as 90 days past due. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX ; XX/XX/XXXX ; and XX/XX/XXXX Reported Status : 90 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : Over {$1000.00} was paid in XXXX, nearly XXXX times the monthly payment. This should have brought the account current, and reporting 90 days late is not consistent with this level of repayment. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX Reported Status : 120 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : A single month was missed and an {$800.00} payment was made within 60 days. XXXX the account to 120 days delinquent does not reflect the actual payment activity. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX Reported Status : 120 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : Payment was made within 60 days of the missed due date. The status should have been no more than XXXX or 60 days late, not XXXX. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Due Date : XX/XX/XXXX Payments Made : XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX Reported Status : 150 days late Why This Is Inaccurate : XXXX payments totaling over {$3000.00} were made within 75 days of the due date. This level of repayment is inconsistent with a XXXX delinquency designation and should have updated the status accordingly. \n\nRebuttal to Credit Acceptances XX/XX/XXXX Response Regarding CFPB Complaint No. XXXX XXXX. Claim : Partial payments do not reset the delinquency timeline. \nThat logic is flawed when full or cumulative catch-up payments have been made. For example, in XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX full payments were madecovering the missed XXXX payment in full. Yet, XXXX XXXX still reported the account as 90 days delinquent. \nContract Evidence : Nowhere in the agreement does it define how delinquency aging should be handled with consecutive or catch-up payments. \nXXXX XXXX : Under the FCRA and XXXX XXXX guidelines, when a consumer cures past-due status, the account must not continue aging in delinquency. Re-aging it without basis is materially misleading and reportable to regulators. \n\nThis XXXX be true for minor partialsbut I did not just make partial payments ; I made full catch-up payments and in many cases multiple payments within a single month. For example : In XX/XX/XXXX, I made XXXX full payments ( {$390.00} each on XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX ), covering the missed XXXX obligation. \nDespite this, XXXX was reported as 90 days late, and XXXX and XXXX were also marked late, even though further payments were made. \nThat is not delinquency. That is re-aging. \n\nSupporting Evidence : XXXX XXXX own payment history attached to their XX/XX/XXXX response shows these payments clearly. Yet the credit report shows aged delinquencies that contradict the data they provided. This shows they either never reviewed their own data or deliberately ignored it. \n\nXXXX. Claim : The delinquency timeline for XXXX is accurate. \nAbsolutely false. Below is a breakdown using XXXX XXXX own XX/XX/XXXX records : XX/XX/XXXX : Missed XXXX : Paid {$800.00} XXXX : Missed XXXX : Paid {$600.00} XXXX : Missed XXXX : Paid {$600.00} XXXX : Paid {$2400.00} Yet from XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX, the account is reported as 90150 days late across all three bureaus. That is blatant re-aging and manufactured delinquency, directly contradicted by the data they submitted themselves. \n\nIt is not enough to say the account was reported correctly based on system entries. You must reconcile : The payment due dates The actual funds received and applied And the delinquency age reported to the credit bureaus I mapped the payment history directly against standard delinquency aging thresholds. In multiple instances including XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and the entire second half of XXXX payments were made that should have stopped delinquency from aging, yet the account was carried forward as if no payments were made. \n\nXXXX. Claim : We furnished the same information to all three credit bureaus. \nThen why is each bureau showing? \nA different number of late payments ( TransUnion : XXXX, Experian : XXXX, Equifax : XXXX ) Different statuses in the same month Either Credit Acceptance is : Sending inconsistent or ambiguous data, or The credit bureaus are failing to properly interpret and apply the information. \n\nBoth scenarios violate the FCRAs mandate for maximum possible accuracy. \n\nRebuttal to Excuses in Credit Acceptances XX/XX/XXXX Letter Preemptive Defense Based on XX/XX/XXXX Payment History In its XX/XX/XXXX response, XXXX XXXX attempted to justify the continued reporting of XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and even XXXX delinquencies. However, these excuses directly contradict the detailed payment history XXXX XXXX themselves provided on XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nBelow is a point-by-point rebuttal to anticipated and stated defenses none of which withstand scrutiny when weighed against their own documentation and obligations under federal law. \n\nXXXX. Excuse : Catch-up payments were applied to older balances and did not bring the account current Payment allocation can not be used to justify extended delinquency. The XX/XX/XXXX payment history clearly shows full and multiple payments including {$800.00}, $ XXXX, and $ XXXX made shortly after missed months. XXXX XXXX XXXX and FCRA XXXX ( b ), once the delinquency is cured, it can not legally be carried forward or re-aged. \n\nXXXX. Excuse : Our system does not automatically recalculate delinquency That is not a legal defense its an admission of noncompliance. If internal systems do not allow delinquency aging to reset after payments are made, then the system is furnishing misleading and damaging data in violation of FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ). \n\nXXXX. Excuse : The account was never fully brought current The XX/XX/XXXX letter shows that I made multiple full payments in key months, often back-to-back, and clearly enough to resolve any past-due balance. Continuing to report the account as XXXX or XXXX days late while receiving those payments is factually inaccurate and abusive. \n\nXXXX. Excuse : XXXX is valid based on days past due Even if a payment was late, the aging must reflect how many days past the contractual due date. Payments made within 3060 days can not be reported as 90150 days late. The XX/XX/XXXX payment record disproves the reported aging. \n\nXXXX. Excuse : The credit bureaus verified the data The bureaus rely on e-OSCAR, an automated dispute system that does not perform a manual review. Your XX/XX/XXXX letter, which contains the payment timeline, was not reconciled by any human reviewer at Experian, Equifax, or TransUnion. That means verification is incomplete and legally insufficient under FCRA XXXX. \n\nBottom line : The XX/XX/XXXX excuses are contradicted by the XX/XX/XXXX evidence XXXX XXXX itself submitted. These explanations are not only false they are a coordinated effort between the furnisher and credit bureaus to shift blame, delay correction, and continue furnishing false, damaging, and unlawful information about my account. \n\nProof That Missed Payments Were Cured and Re-Aging Is Improper Credit Acceptance has inaccurately reported extended delinquency ( 60150 days late ) by ignoring substantial catch-up payments that fully cured missed payments from XXXX. Below is a detailed breakdown of when payments were missed, how they were resolved, and why ongoing derogatory reporting is legally unjustified. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Missed Payment Proof of Cure : {$800.00} paid on XX/XX/XXXX Covered both XXXX and XXXX payments in full. \nEvidence : XXXX XXXX own records confirm this large payment. \nConclusion : No basis to report delinquency beyond 30 days. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Missed Payment Proof of Cure : Full payments made in : XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Evidence : Consecutive full monthly payments following XXXX resolve the delinquency. \nConclusion : Account was brought current and stayed current no justification for ongoing derogatory reporting. \n\nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX Missed Payments Proof of Cure : XX/XX/XXXX : {$390.00} ( full payment ) XX/XX/XXXX : {$390.00} ( full payment ) XX/XX/XXXX : {$390.00} XX/XX/XXXX : {$300.00} XX/XX/XXXX : {$390.00} Total Paid in 90 Days : Over {$1400.00} Evidence : Payment history from XX/XX/XXXX Credit Acceptance letter Conclusion : XXXX and XXXX delinquencies were fully cured within 60 days account should have been marked current. \n\nAnd lets be clear your companys mishandling of XXXX hardship protections makes your reporting even more egregious. In your own XX/XX/XXXX letter, you confirmed that my account was removed from COVID Protected Status on XX/XX/XXXX despite the fact that I made XXXX full payments in XXXX, on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. Yet instead of acknowledging that I resumed payment in good faith, you immediately marked my account as 90 days late, as if no effort had been made at all. \n\nYou have no valid justification for removing me from XXXX relief in the first place even if I missed payments in XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, I was in constant communication with your customer service team, notifying your company of my ongoing hardship and intent to resolve the balance. That communication alone should have preserved my protection status or at the very least prevented the account from being harshly penalized. But instead, you weaponized the removal by re-aging my account and resuming aggressive negative reporting and immediately marked my account as 90 days late in XXXX, as if no payments had been made at all. \n\nUnder the CARES Act and updated FCRA guidance, consumers granted COVID accommodations were not to be penalized with delinquent reporting during or immediately after the relief period, especially when payments resumed in good faith. Your decision to end my protection XXXX day before a full payment and then backdate a XXXX delinquency is not just inaccurate, its abusive and intentionally deceptive. It contradicts your stated policies, violates federal law, and shows a clear intent to punish rather than support consumers during a national crisis. \n\nYou had the power and the documentation to report this account accurately but you chose to weaponize the end of XXXX relief to re-age delinquencies and damage my credit. \n\nXXXX XXXX & Legal Implications These payments clearly cured each delinquency within the XXXX thresholds ( 3060 days ). \nContinuing to report these periods as XXXX, XXXX, or 150 days late is a violation of FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ) and XXXX XXXX standards. \nThis pattern constitutes improper re-aging and furnishes a materially misleading credit profile. \n\nAll supporting payment records were disclosed in XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX response, confirming the timeline above. Any attempt to link XXXX delinquencies to these resolved periods is both factually unsupported and legally indefensible. \n\nAdditional Violations and Concerns : Retaliation : XXXX XXXX restricted my online access to payment records after I filed complaints. I was unable to view my remaining balance, payment activity, or due dates. Thats retaliatory and unethical. \nDismissiveness : Instead of properly investigating, XXXX XXXX legal team simply repeats generic responses and pushes me to call themrather than correcting documented, proven errors. \nMisleading the CFPB : By refusing to address payment-by-payment discrepancies and brushing off full settlement activity, XXXX XXXX is submitting XXXX XXXX responses to a federal agency. \nImpact : This has sabotaged my XXXX XXXX for XXXX years, damaged my credibility with lenders, and blocked me from refinancing and auto purchases. My account has XXXX payment leftyet my report looks worse than someone in active default. \nCall for XXXX : As a consumer, I should not have to fight this hard to correct obvious reporting failures. The credit bureaus should not allow auto-aging to persist for years unchecked. Every year from XXXX to XXXX should be manually reviewed and corrected immediately. \n\nPreemptive Rebuttal : We Do Not Recalculate Delinquency Is Not a Legal Defense Should Credit Acceptance attempt to claim that they do not recalculate balances or delinquency aging once a payment is missed, I want to make it clear that such a policy if true would not absolve them of responsibility under federal law. \n\nXXXX. XXXX XXXX Standards Require Accurate, Updated Reporting : The XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX XXXX guidelines make clear that when a consumer cures a delinquency even through staggered or large catch-up payments furnishers are obligated to adjust the delinquency status accordingly. Continuing to report an account as XXXX, XXXX, or 150 days late after such payments is materially misleading and violates data furnishing standards. \n\nXXXX. Not Recalculating Is a Breach of FCRA Obligations : Even if XXXX XXXX has an internal policy of not recalculating once delinquency begins, that policy does not override FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ), which requires the furnishing of accurate and complete information. XXXX prolonged delinquency while ignoring substantial payments that resolved the delinquent amount is both deceptive and damaging. \n\nXXXX. Internal Policies Can not Override Legal Requirements : A companys refusal to update or recalculate based on new payments is not a defense it is noncompliance. The Fair Credit Reporting Act mandates accurate and fair credit reporting, regardless of internal system limitations or preferences. \n\nXXXX. Harm from Failure to Recalculate : This type of rigid, one-directional reporting has falsely inflated the severity of my credit history, suppressed my score, and caused real-world harm in the form of loan denials and unfavorable financing terms despite regular and significant payments. \n\nIf XXXX XXXX or the credit bureaus assert this reasoning as a defense, I will treat it as a willful violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and pursue additional complaints with federal and state regulators accordingly. \n\nFinal Demand for Full Reinvestigation ( XXXX ) I am formally requesting a full and manual reinvestigation of my XXXX XXXX tradeline covering the period from XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX. This investigation must include : 1. A month-by-month reconciliation of reported delinquency status against actual payments made, using the payment history provided by XXXX XXXX. \n2. Correction or deletion of all inaccurately re-aged delinquencies where payments were made or delinquencies were cured within 30 days. \n3. Removal of all excessive XXXX delinquency entries that contradict both the factual payment activity and XXXX XXXX standards. \n4. Confirmation that this investigation was conducted outside of e-OSCAR and involved manual human review, as required under FCRA XXXX. \n\nAt this point, I only have XXXX payment left on this account, yet my credit reports reflect over XXXX years of inflated, false derogatory status. This is not an oversight this is systemic, intentional, and damaging. \n\nCollective Failure and Collusion by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX has made it clear in its written response that it disclaims responsibility for how this data appears on my reports, placing blame on the credit bureaus. In turn, Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion claim to simply report what is furnished. \n\nThis finger-pointing is unacceptable. \nUnder FCRA XXXX and XXXX, both furnishers and CRAs are independently responsible for the accuracy and integrity of the data they report or publish. This means : XXXX XXXX is responsible for what it submits. \nThe credit bureaus are responsible for verifying, reviewing, and publishing that data accurately. \n\nBy allowing these inaccuracies to persist knowingly all parties are complicit. \n\nThis is no longer a matter of mere error. This is a coordinated failure to correct false reporting, despite documentation, disputes, and federal complaints. And in that, XXXX XXXX, Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion are colluding knowingly and willfully to maintain a damaging, false credit narrative that is unsupported by the actual payment history. \n\nWhat This Has Cost Me Financial, Personal, and Long-Term Harm The ongoing false reporting and failure to correct inaccurate delinquency data has had a profound and devastating impact on nearly every aspect of my financial stability and personal life. This is not just a matter of numbers on a report this has been a sustained attack on my ability to function financially, and it has come with measurable, lasting harm. \nI have been flagged as a credit risk across multiple platforms and lender systems due to the inflated number of severe delinquencies reported by XXXX XXXX and published by Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion. \nI have been denied financing for housing, including rejection from rental properties and credit-based apartment applications, despite having stable income and the means to pay. \nI have been denied auto loans and refinancing, even after making over XXXX payments on time and ultimately paying the account in full. \nI have had to accept higher interest rates, larger security deposits, and unfavorable contract terms for basic financial services due to the false impression created by this reporting. \nI have spent over {$3000.00} out-of-pocket covering inflated security deposits, upfront insurance costs, and denied credit-based offers that would have otherwise reduced my financial burden. \nI have had to delay life plans including seeking new housing and upgrading my vehicle due to credit-related denials and hesitations from lenders. \nIve experienced emotional distress, humiliation, and exhaustion from having to explain these errors repeatedly to landlords, lenders, and financial institutions and from having to fight so hard just to have my truthful history reflected. \n\nAll of this has occurred despite my continued good faith efforts to maintain the account, including making full payments, catch-up payments, and ultimately paying off the loan entirely. \n\nThis is not only negligent it is punitive, abusive, and predatory. \n\nIt is a direct violation of : The Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) for the repeated furnishing and publication of inaccurate, outdated, and misleading information. \nXXXX XXXX standards for failing to recalculate or update delinquency aging after payments. \nUDAAP under the Consumer Financial XXXX XXXX for engaging in deceptive and abusive practices that trap consumers in falsely negative credit positions. \n\nI am not seeking special treatment I am demanding lawful, accurate treatment. And I will hold each party accountable for the personal, financial, and emotional damage this has caused. You can not continue to profit from inaccurate reporting, destroy my financial standing, and shift blame while refusing to act. This is my final demand for full resolution and correction. \n\nThe record is clear. The data is yours. The error is deliberate. The harm is real.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-05-03T22:15:32.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"483XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13321520","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-05-03T20:55:45.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Account information incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This is a calculated pattern of avoidance and its part of the reason your company continues to face lawsuits and consumer protection <em>investigations</em>. You are willfully reporting false data, and that is a direct violation of the law. \n\nThe credit bureaus are just as complicit. Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion have failed in their legal obligation to conduct proper <em>investigations</em>."]},"sort":[5.5144453,"13321520"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":19,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":19}]}},"product":{"doc_count":19,"product":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":8,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":8}]}},{"key":"Debt collection","doc_count":3,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Other debt","doc_count":2},{"key":"I do not know","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Checking or savings account","doc_count":2,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Checking account","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Credit card or prepaid card","doc_count":2,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, 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":"Debt or credit management","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Student loan debt relief","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Mortgage","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"VA mortgage","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"issue":{"doc_count":19,"issue":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Incorrect information on your report","doc_count":6,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Account information incorrect","doc_count":3},{"key":"Information belongs to someone else","doc_count":3}]}},{"key":"Improper use of your report","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Reporting company used your report improperly","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Managing an account","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Deposits and withdrawals","doc_count":1},{"key":"Problem using a debit or ATM card","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Took or threatened to take negative or legal action","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Seized or attempted to seize your property","doc_count":1},{"key":"Sued you without properly notifying you of lawsuit","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Advertising and marketing, including promotional offers","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Didn't receive advertised or promotional terms","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Trouble during payment process","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Payment process","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Unauthorized withdrawals or charges","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Written notification about debt","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Didn't receive enough information to verify debt","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"timely":{"doc_count":19,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":19}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":19,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":14},{"key":"Closed with non-monetary relief","doc_count":4},{"key":"Closed with monetary relief","doc_count":1}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":19,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":19}]}},"company":{"doc_count":19,"company":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","doc_count":3},{"key":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","doc_count":3},{"key":"CITIBANK, N.A.","doc_count":2},{"key":"EQUIFAX, INC.","doc_count":2},{"key":"AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY","doc_count":1},{"key":"BMO BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"CMG Financial Services, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Gurstel Law Firm, P.C.","doc_count":1},{"key":"NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","doc_count":1},{"key":"Nelnet, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","doc_count":1},{"key":"WSFS FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":1}]}},"state":{"doc_count":19,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"MI","doc_count":6},{"key":"GA","doc_count":5},{"key":"CA","doc_count":3},{"key":"DE","doc_count":1},{"key":"NE","doc_count":1},{"key":"PA","doc_count":1},{"key":"WI","doc_count":1},{"key":"WY","doc_count":1}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":19,"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":7},{"key":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","doc_count":1}]}},"tags":{"doc_count":19,"tags":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Servicemember","doc_count":2},{"key":"Older American","doc_count":1}]}}},"_meta":{"license":"CC0","last_updated":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","last_indexed":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","total_record_count":16441818,"is_data_stale":false,"has_data_issue":false,"break_points":{}}}