Consumer complaint received 2023-07-10
Company: BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
State: TX
Product: Checking or savings account
Sub-product: Checking account
Issue: Managing an account
Sub-issue: Deposits and withdrawals

Complaint:
To try and HELP BANK OF AMERICA LEGAL AND COMPLIANCE DEPT UNDERSTAND CONSUMER RIGHTS- to help them STOP FARTHER INCRIMINATING THEMSELVES IVE LISTED JUST A FEW THAT DIRECTLY APPLY TO BANKS AND OR COVERED BANKS.

CFPB I DEMAND BANK OF AMERICA BEGIN RE READING ALL PORTAL REQUEST PER FEDERAL LAWS- AND BEGIN TO ALLOW THE CFPB & Me as the CFPB STATED MONTHS AGO- ( FEDERALLY REQUIRED ACCEPTABLE ANSWERS. ) I allege BANK OF AMERICA CAN NOT BE SO IGNORANT TO NOT UNDERSTAND THE POSITION THEY PUT THEMSELVES IN BY TO MANY NON FRIVOLOUS CHARGES TO STATE HERE. 

TAKING THE 5th by using the ( this appears to be a duplicate- will has TURNED ON WHOMEVER KEEPS DEFYING THE CFPB AND BANKING LAWS FOR EXPLICITLY WRITTEN LEGIBLE UNDERSTANDING FEDERALLY REQUIRED ANSWERS NOW OR IN COURT DEMANDS PER INTERROGATIONAL MOTIONS AND DEPOSITIONS. 

Again as from THE CFPB 1st approach STOP LOOK AND HEAR AND READ. 

IN THIS POTAL ALONE, I allege by common sense by the forced admissions, the 2 letter I received from Bank of America and compliance officer XXXX XXXX, ( See downloaded messages- read all carefully as XXXX XXXX claimed ( after CAREFUL REVIEW ) read dates, admission & omissions- in the generalized way BOA compliance had boxed themselves in, per their own illegal admitted per se, by the we are NOT DENYING mishandling XXXX XXXX & HIS GOV BENEFITS MONEY AND ACCOUNTS. 
Yet refuse by all but taking the 5th on apox XXXX - request for federal lawful required answers in expected by many federal laws, pertaining to any account more-so in my case- my federal protected direct deposit gov Benifits accounts. 
I need not Tell them how. 
They need to explicitly explain the mishandling by federal laws- in total honesty as the mishandling began- only hours after a BOA manager XXXX EXILED ) XXXX XXXX tried to help a bank consumer be allowed a ( sworn statement contractual recorded fraud investigation on XX/XX/XXXX. IT TOOK HOURS FOR XXXX XXXX ( using my evidence ) to set all in contractual formate. Yet only a hour FOR BOA COMPLIANCE TO INSTANTANEOUSLY- 1- illegally freeze ( per ( EXILED NOW ) BOA manager ALL XXXX XXXX MONEY ACCESS TO EVEN BLACKED OUT XXXX XXXX ABILITY TO VIEW HIS ONLINE ACCOUNTS- ( ALL WENT BLACK ) THEN- It took ( my evidence ) it took me proving to the CFPB, upon the CFPB, 1st inquiry with BOA COMPLIANCE- to prove BOA COMPLIANCE WAS NOT JUST ACCIDENTALLY FORGETTING, THEY KNEW ME ALL TO WELL- THE BOA COMPLIANCE FLAT OUT LIED, in a 2nd attempt to subvert administration of justice. /THE 1st being the all but ADMITTED, serious UNWARRANTED threatening LETTER TO XXXX XXXX XXXX using the us postal services, IN CONTEMPORARIES ORDER- ( OF ALL THE WAYS THEY MAY illegally, Totally knowingly unwarrantably - take THESE ACTIONS- 1- DESTROY XXXX XXXX REPUTATION, then, also KNOWINGLY WRONGFULLY, turning him into the SOME EARLY WARNING SYSTEM- explaining to XXXX  XXXX this would STOP HIM FROM BEING ABLE TO EVEN OPEN A CHECKING ACCOUNT FOR 5 YEARS, ANYWHERE AT ANY BANK. 
THEY WENT FARTHER, STATING THEY ALSO Could & MAY turn him into XXXX XXXX. This letter sent in haste to wrongfully intimidate, to defraud, to cause XXXX  XXXX to fear INFORMING PROPER AGENCIES OF PURE ABUSE IN POWER. 

This threat was RECIEVED in us mail XX/XX/XXXX XXXX only 1-1/2 DAYS INTO THE INTENTIONAL Mis handling of XXXX XXXX XXXX protected gov Benifits accounts. 

IT TOOK MY EVIDENCES TO THE CFPB TO ALLOW THE TO REPROACH THE BOA COMPLIANCE DEPT- and all but say- WE READ THE EXPLICITLY WRITTEN DETAILED CERTIFIED LETTER BOA COMPLIANCE- just RECENTLY RECIEVED, from XXXX XXXX so start EXPLAINING- THEN BOXED IN YET " more than obviously aware '' yet BOA HAD TO PRETEXT OUT SOMETHING PER LIES. 

SO, read the intentional generalized, LETTER XXXX XXXX WAS FORCED, TO WRITE " SOMETHING ANY THING. in XXXX ADMITTING " we are not denying lying " i guess we got busted so we write AFTER CAREFUL REVIEWING. WE MIS HANDLED IT ALL. 
yea XXXX XXXX. 

IT THEN TOOK UNTIL XX/XX/XXXX & XXXX XXXX TO ALLOW XXXX  XXXX TO KNOW- they indeed NEVER TOOK THE FRAUDULENT THREATENING ACTIONS TO FARTHER DESTROY HIS FINACIALLY LIFE AND CREDIT- " they just did it anyway HOW? BY WHAT THEY CALL THE " MISHANDLING '' of XXXX  XXXX 's MONEY ACCOUNTS AND XXXX XXXX AND FAMILY BY STARVING THEM OUT- almost 2 full months by additional illegally abuse in power im to many ways to explain in legal terms here. 
AS its WILL all BE IN THE EXPLICITLY EXPLAINED LEGAL SUIT- unless BANK OF AMERICA FINALLY DECIDES ( HELPING XXXX- XXXX GET THEIR WAY- WAS ILLEGAL AND BY XXXX XXXX & more-so CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE- per exact date 's, documents- BOA MANAGER XXXX XXXX STATEMENTS- Actions & inactions there of- SAYING AGAIN, DOING AGAIN, more than have time to explain A RECORDING WILL DO FINE. 




Materially interfering with consumers understanding of terms and conditions The first abusiveness prohibition concerns situations where an entity16 materially interferes with the ability of a consumer to understand a term or condition of a consumer financial product or service.17 Material interference can be shown when an act or omission is intended to impede consumers ability to understand terms or conditions, has the natural consequence of impeding consumers ability to understand, or actually impedes understanding. 
Acts or omissions Material interference may include actions or omissions that obscure, withhold, de-emphasize, render confusing, or hide information relevant to the ability of a consumer to understand terms and conditions. Interference can take numerous forms, such as buried disclosures, physical or digital interference, overshadowing, and various other means of manipulating consumers understanding. 
Buried disclosures include disclosures that limit peoples comprehension of a term or condition, including but not limited to, through the use of fine print, complex language, jargon, or the timing of the disclosure.18 Entities can also interfere with understanding by omitting material terms or conditions.19 Physical interference can include any physical conduct that impedes a persons ability to see, hear, or understand the terms and conditions, including but not limited to physically hiding or withholding notices.20 Digital interference can include impediments to a persons ability to see, hear, or understand the terms and conditions when they are presented to someone in electronic or virtual format. This form of interference includes but is not limited to user interface and user experience manipulations such as the use of pop-up or drop-down boxes, multiple click-throughs, or other actions or dark patterns21 that have the effect of making the terms and conditions materially less accessible or salient. 
Overshadowing includes the prominent placement of certain content that interferes with the comprehension of other content, including terms and conditions.22 Material interference There are a number of methods to prove material interference with a consumers ability to understand terms or conditions, including but not limited to those described below. First, while intent is not a required element to show material interference, it is reasonable to infer that an act or omission materially interferes with consumers ability to understand a term or condition when the entity intends it to interfere.23 Second, material interference can be established with evidence that the natural consequence of the act or omission would be to impede consumers ability to understand. And third, material interference can also be shown with evidence that the act or omission did in fact impede consumers actual understanding. While evidence of intent would provide a basis for inferring material interference under the first method, it is not a required element to show material interference. 
Certain terms of a transaction are so consequential that when they are not conveyed to people prominently or clearly, it may be reasonable to presume that the entity engaged in acts or omissions that materially interfere with consumers ability to understand. That information includes, but is not limited to, pricing or costs, limitations on the persons ability to use or benefit from the product or service, and contractually specified consequences of default. 
Additionally, an entitys provision of a product or service may interfere with consumers ability to understand if the product or service is so complicated that material information about it can not be sufficiently explained or if the entitys business model functions in a manner that is inconsistent with its products or services apparent terms. 
Taking unreasonable advantage The second form of abusiveness under the CFPA prohibits entities from taking unreasonable advantage of certain circumstances.24 Congress determined that it is an abusive act or practice when an entity takes unreasonable advantage of three particular circumstances.25 The circumstances are : 1. A lack of understanding on the part of the consumer of the material risks, costs, or conditions of the product or service.26 This circumstance concerns gaps in understanding affecting consumer decision-making.

2. The inability of the consumer to protect the interests of the consumer in selecting or using a consumer financial product or service.27 This circumstance concerns unequal bargaining power where, for example, consumers lack the practical ability to switch providers, seek more favorable terms, or make other decisions to protect their interests.

3. The reasonable reliance by the consumer on a covered person to act in the interests of the consumer.28 This circumstance concerns consumer reliance on an entity, including when consumers reasonably rely on an entity to make a decision for them or advise them on how to make a decision. 
Under the CFPA, it is illegal for an entity to take unreasonable advantage of one of these three circumstances, even if the condition was not created by the entity.29 The ordinary meaning of the phrase take advantage of is generally to make use of for ones own benefit.30 An advantage can include a variety of monetary and non-monetary benefits to the entity or its affiliates or partners, including but not limited to increased market share, revenue, cost savings, profits,31 reputational benefits, and other operational benefits to the entity. 
The CFPA prohibits taking unreasonable advantage of the specified statutory circumstances. The term reasonable means [ f ] air, proper, or moderate under the circumstances,32 and conversely, unreasonable means exceeding the bounds of reason or moderation.33 In crafting the abusiveness prohibition, Congress identified categories of practices that distort the market and ultimately harm consumers. Therefore, unlike unfairness, government enforcers do not need to independently prove that an act or practice caused substantial injury in order to establish liability under the abusiveness prohibition.34 Evaluating unreasonable advantage involves an evaluation of the facts and circumstances that may affect the nature of the advantage and the question of whether the advantage-taking was unreasonable under the circumstances.35 Such an evaluation does not require an inquiry into whether advantage-taking is typical or not.36 And even a relatively small advantage may be abusive if it is unreasonable. There are also a number of analytical methods, including but not limited to those described below, that can be used to evaluate unreasonable advantage-taking. 
First, when Congress formulated the CFPA, one of its main concerns was financial products and services that may be set up to fail. Before the XXXX financial crisis, mortgage lenders were willing to make loans on terms that people could not afford in part due to the ability to off-load default risk into the secondary market. This led to significant harm to the household sector, which was ultimately transmitted to the broader financial system. 
The CFPAs legislative history explains that, had the CFPB existed, the CFPB would have been able to see and take action against the proliferation of poorly underwritten mortgages with abusive terms.37 Partly in response to the financial crisis, Congress prohibited certain abusive business models and other acts or practices thatcontrary to many consumer finance relationships where the company benefits from consumer successmisalign incentives and generate benefit for a company when people are harmed.38 In many circumstances, it is unreasonable for an entity to benefit from, or be indifferent to, negative consumer outcomes resulting from one of the circumstances identified by Congress. 
Second, the CFPAs legislative history emphasized that, as a result of CFPB oversight, a consumer can shop and compare products based on quality, price, and convenience without having to worry about getting trapped by fine print into an abusive deal.39 Unreasonable advantage-taking includes using the statutory circumstances to acquire particular leverage over people or deprive consumers of legal rights.40 Relatedly, advantage-taking may be unreasonable when an entity caused one of the circumstances described in CFPA section 1031 ( d ) ( 2 ) .41 One may also assess whether entities are obtaining an unreasonable advantage by considering whether they are reaping more benefits as a consequence of the statutorily identified circumstances, or whether the benefit to the entity would have existed if the circumstance did not exist.42 In other words, entities should not get a windfall due to a gap in understanding, unequal bargaining power, or consumer reliance. Having said that, section 1031 ( d ) ( 2 ) does not require an investigative accounting of costs and benefits or other form of quantification to make a finding. Instead, one may rely on qualitative assessment to determine whether an entity takes an unreasonable advantage.

Lack of Understanding The first circumstance, of which entities can not take unreasonable advantage, as defined in the CFPA, concerns a lack of understanding on the part of the consumer of the material risks, costs, or conditions of the product or service.43 When there are gaps in understanding regarding the material risks, costs, or conditions of the entitys product or service, entities may not take unreasonable advantage of that gap. Such gaps could include those between an entity and a consumer. Certain types of gaps in understanding can create circumstances where transactions are exploitative.

Gaps in understanding as to risks encompass a wide range of potential consumer harms. Risks include but are not limited to the consequences or likelihood of default44 and the loss of future benefits.45 Gaps in understanding related to costs include any monetary charge to a person as well as non-monetary costs such as lost time, loss of use, or reputational harm.46 And gaps in understanding with respect to conditions include any circumstance, context, or attribute of a product or service, whether express or implicit.47 For example, conditions could include the length of time it would take a person to realize the benefits of a financial product or service,48 the relationship between the entity and the consumers creditors,49 the fact a debt is not legally enforceable,50 or the processes that determine when fees will be assessed.51 While acts or omissions by an entity can be relevant in determining whether people lack understanding,52 the prohibition in section 1031 ( d ) ( 2 ) ( A ) does not require that the entity caused the persons lack of understanding through untruthful statements or other actions or omissions.53 Under the text of section 1031 ( d ) ( 2 ) ( A ), the consumers lack of understanding, regardless of how it arose, is sufficient. If people lack understanding, entities may not take unreasonable advantage of that lack of understanding. The lack of understanding can be caused by third parties and can exist even when there is no contractual relationship between the person and the entity that takes unreasonable advantage of the persons lack of understanding.54 The statutory text of the prohibition does not require that the consumers lack of understanding was reasonable to demonstrate abusive conduct.55 Similarly, the prohibition does not require proof that some threshold number of people lacked understanding to establish that an act or practice was abusive.

A person may lack understanding of risks, costs, or conditions, even if they have an awareness that it is in the realm of possibility that a particular negative consequence may follow or a particular cost may be incurred as a result of using the product or service.56 But consumers generally do not expect companies to benefit from or be indifferent to certain negative consequences, including but not limited to default. Moreover, consumers may not understand that a risk is very likely to happen or thatthough relatively rarethe impact of a particular risk would be severe.57 The inquiry under section 1031 ( d ) ( 2 ) ( A ) is whether some consumers in question have a lack of understanding, not all consumers or even most consumers. Since there can be differences among consumers in the risks, costs, and conditions they face and in their understanding of them, there may be a violation with respect to some consumers even if other consumers do not lack understanding.

Lastly, one can demonstrate a persons lack of understanding in a number of ways. For example, direct evidence of lack of understanding, including but not limited to complaints and consumer testimony, can suffice. Evidence or analysis showing that reasonable consumers were not likely to understand can likewise be used to establish lack of understanding. One can also demonstrate lack of understanding by considering course of conduct and likely consequences. For example, if a transaction would entail material risks or costs and people would likely derive minimal or no benefit from the transaction, it is generally reasonable to infer that people who nonetheless went ahead with the transaction did not understand those material risks or costs.58 Inability of Consumers to Protect their Interests The second circumstance, of which entities can not take unreasonable advantage, as defined in the CFPA, concerns the inability of the consumer to protect the interests of the consumer in selecting or using a consumer financial product or service.59 When people are unable to protect their interests in selecting or using a consumer financial product or service, they can lack autonomy. In these situations, there is a risk that entities will take unreasonable advantage of the unequal bargaining power.60 Thus, Congress has outlawed taking unreasonable advantage of circumstances where people lack sufficient bargaining power to protect their interests. Such circumstances may occur at the time of, or prior to, the person selecting the product or service, during their use of the product or service, or both.

The consumer interests contemplated in section 1031 ( d ) ( 2 ) ( B ) include monetary and non-monetary interests, including but not limited to property, privacy, or reputational interests.61 People also have interests in limiting the amount of time or effort necessary to obtain consumer financial products or services or remedy problems related to those products or services. This includes, but is not limited to, the time spent trying to obtain customer support assistance.62 A consumers inability to protect their interests includes situations when it is impractical for them to protect their interests in selecting or using a consumer financial product or service.63 For example, when the steps a person would need to take to protect their interests are unknown to the person64 or are especially onerous,65 they are likely unable to protect their interest. Furthermore, people who do not have monetary means may be unable to protect their interests if the only practical method for doing so requires payment of money.66 Of course, merely serving people without monetary means is not abusive. However, it may be abusive to take unreasonable advantage of a persons lack of monetary means to protect their interests.67 The nature of the customer relationship may also render consumers unable to protect their interests in selecting or using a consumer financial product or service. People are often unable to protect their interests when they do not elect to enter into a relationship with an entity and can not elect to instead enter into a relationship with a competitor. These consumer relationships, including but not limited to those with credit reporting companies, debt collectors, and third-party loan servicers, are generally structured such that people can not exercise meaningful choice in the selection or use of any particular entity as a provider. In these circumstances, people can not protect their interests by choosing an alternative provider either upfront ( i.e., they have no ability to select the provider to begin with ) or during the course of the customer relationship ( i.e., they have no competitive recourse if they encounter difficulty with the entity while using the product or service ). Obviously, such relationships are not per se abusive ; however, entities may not take unreasonable advantage of the absence of choice in these types of relationships.68 In addition, entities may not take unreasonable advantage of the fact that they are the only source for important information or services.69 Consumers may also lack power to protect their interests in selecting or using a consumer financial product or service when entities use form contracts, where contractual provisions are not subject to a consumer choice.70 Similarly, where the person is unable to bargain over a clause because it is non-negotiable, they may be deprived of the ability to protect their interests.71 Consumers are often unable to protect their interests in selecting or using a consumer financial product or service where companies have outsized market power. When an entitys market share, the concentration in a market more broadly, or the market structure prevents people from protecting their interests by choosing an entity that offers competitive pricing, entities may not use their market power to their unreasonable advantage.72 In addition, people are often unable to protect their interests in using a product or service if they face high transaction costs to exit the relationship. For example, the time, effort, cost, or risks associated with extricating oneself from a relationship with entities may effectively lock people into the relationship.

Reasonable Reliance The third circumstance, of which entities can not take unreasonable advantage, as defined in the CFPA, concerns the reasonable reliance by the consumer on a covered person to act in the interests of the consumer.73 This basis for finding abusiveness recognizes that sometimes people are in a position in which they have a reasonable expectation that an entity will act in their interest to make decisions for them, or to advise them on how to make a decision. Where people reasonably expect that a covered entity will make decisions or provide advice in the persons interest, there is potential for betrayal or exploitation of the persons trust. Therefore, Congress prohibited taking unreasonable advantage of reasonable consumer reliance. There are a number of ways to establish reasonable reliance, including but not limited to the two described below.

First, reasonable reliance may exist where an entity communicates to a person or the public that it will act in its customers best interest, or otherwise holds itself out as acting in the persons best interest. Where an entity communicates to people that it will act in their best interest, or otherwise holds itself out as doing so, including through statements, advertising, or any other means, it is generally reasonable for people to rely on the entitys explicit or implicit representations to that effect.74 People reasonably assume entities are telling the truth. The entity in these situations creates an expectation of trust and the conditions for people to rely on the entity to act in their best interest.

Second, reasonable reliance may also exist where an entity assumes the role of acting on behalf of consumers or helping them to select providers in the market. In certain circumstances entities assume the role of acting on behalf of people as their agents or representatives, and people should be able to rely on those entities to act on their behalf. In other circumstances entities often act as intermediaries to help people navigate marketplaces for consumer financial products or services.75 In these situations, the entity, acting as an intermediary, can function as a broker or other trusted source that the person uses in selecting, negotiating for, or otherwise facilitating the procurement of consumer financial products or services provided by third parties. Where the entitys role in the marketplace is to perform these kinds of intermediary functions, people should be able to rely on the entity to do so in a manner that is free of manipulation.76 In both circumstances, entities that engage in certain forms of steering or self-dealing may be taking unreasonable advantage of the consumers reasonable reliance.77 Footnotes 1. CFPA section 1036 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ), 12 U.S.C.5536 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ). In CFPA section 1031, Congress prohibited covered persons and services providers from committing or engaging in unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices in connection with the offering or provision of
consumer financial products or services. CFPA section 1031 ( d ) sets forth the general standard for determining whether an act or practice is abusive. See 12 U.S.C. 5531 ( d ). 
2. See, e.g., FTC v. Standard Educ. Socy,

86 F.2d 692, 696 ( 2d Cir. 1936 ), revd in part on other grounds, 302 U.S. 112, 116 ( 1937 ) ( describing the congressional prohibitions intended to regulate methods of fair dealing in the marketplace ). Certain other Federal consumer financial laws, including the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) and the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act ( HOEPA ), reference either the term abusive or abuse. See 15 U.S.C. 1692d ( FDCPA ), 15 U.S.C. 1639 ( p ) ( 2 ) ( B ) ( HOEPA ). The Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act also directed the Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ) to prescribe rules prohibiting deceptive telemarketing acts or practices and other abusive telemarketing acts or practices. 15 U.S.C. 6102 ( a ) ( 1 ).

3. In 1914, Congress passed the FTC Act, which declared as unlawful unfair methods of competition but did not define the term unfair. Act of Sept. 26, 1914, ch. 311, sec. 5 ( a ), 38 Stat. 717, 719 ( codified at 15 U.S.C. 45 ( a ) ). Congress intended that this prohibition would capture conduct that caused competitive harm yet remain flexible enough to allow the law to develop and avoid circumvention. As the Supreme Court explained in 1934, [ n ] either the language nor the history of the Act suggests that Congress intended to confine the forbidden methods to fixed and unyielding categories, and Congress, in defining the powers of the FTC, advisedly adopted a phrase which... does not admit of precise definition, but the meaning and application of which must be arrived at by... the gradual process of judicial inclusion and exclusion. FTC v. R.F. Keppel & Bro., 291 U.S. 304, 310, 312 ( 1934 ) ( internal quotation marks omitted ). 
4. In 1938, in the Wheeler-Lea Act, Congress amended the FTC Act to declare as unlawful unfair or deceptive acts or practices. Wheeler-Lea Act, ch. 49, sec. 3, 52 Stat. 111, 111-14 ( 1938 ) ; 15 U.S.C. 45 ( a ). As it had done previously with unfair methods of competition, Congress did not define this term, instead intending for it to be developed over time. See Am. Fin. Servs. Assn v. FTC, 767 F.2d 957, 978 ( D.C. Cir. 1985 ) ( AFSA ) ( [ N ] either Congress nor the FTC has seen fit to delineate the specific kinds of practices which will be deemed unfair.... Instead the FTC has adhered to its established convention, envisioned by Congress, of developing and refining its unfair practice criteria on a progressive, incremental basis. ).

Company public response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation