Consumer complaint received 2017-08-22
Company: DISCOVER BANK
State: MI
Product: Credit card or prepaid card
Sub-product: General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Problem with a purchase shown on your statement
Sub-issue: Overcharged for something you did purchase with the card

Complaint:
I stop using the two credit cards from Discover. BUT they kept transferring funds out of them to their fake accounts. A few Federal Court orders that they have not followed! Discover, Discover Card, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, Discover personal loans, XXXX XXXX XXXX  has along history of preying on seniors and disable veterans. A few of the Federal court ruling against Discover for consumer fraud! The Discover Fake Credit Card Agreement Class Action Lawsuit is XXXX XXXX v. Discover Bank, Case No. XXXX, in the in the Supreme Court of the State of New York , County of New York. The Discover FCRA Class Action Lawsuit is XXXX XXXX v. Discover Bank, et. al., Case No. XXXX, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin . XXXX XXXX XXXX has reached a {$10.00} million class action lawsuit settlement over allegations it duped its customers into signing up for the fee-based products : Discover Payment Protection ( formerly known as XXXX XXXX ), Identity Theft Protection ( formerly known as Profile Protect ), Wallet Protection ( formerly known as The Register ), and Credit Score Tracker. As a result, consumers who were enrolled in one of these products between XX/XX/XXXXand XX/XX/XXXX may be eligible to receive up to {$30.00} from the Discover product class action settlement. XXXX XXXX XXXX has reached a class action settlement over allegations that it used an automated telephone dialing system and/or an artificial or prerecorded voice to place non-emergency telephone calls to a cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ( TCPA ). If you received an automated call from XXXX XXXX XXXX or any related parties between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, you may be eligible to receive financial compensation. A lawsuit has been filed against financial giant Discover, alleging that the company called more than a hundred times to try and collect someone elses debt. The phone call lawsuit claims that Discovers actions violate federal laws detailed in the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ( TCPA ) designed to protect the public from harassment Law360, New York ( XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX EST ) -- Discover Bank and law firm XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX were hit with a proposed class action in Pennsylvania federal court Friday that accuses them of trying to collect on credit card debt without proper evidence. According to the suit, filed by customer XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, Del.-based Discover, its subsidiary XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX-based XXXX, which serves as a debt collector for Discover, have engaged in an illegal and deceptive scheme to collect credit card debt from customers, using false information to back their claims. A FEW CASES AGAINST XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX for violation the laws! CFPB Files Suit Against Law Firm for Misrepresenting Attorney Involvement in Collection of Millions of Debts CFPB Alleges XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX with Misleading Calls and Letters XXXX, D.C. Today, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) filed a lawsuit in a federal district court against the debt collection law firm XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX for falsely representing in millions of collection letters sent to consumers that attorneys were involved in collecting the debt. The law firm made statements on collection calls and sent collection letters creating the false impression that attorneys had meaningfully reviewed the consumers file, when no such review has occurred. The CFPB is seeking to stop the unlawful practices and recoup compensation for consumers who have been harmed. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Contacts & XXXX : XXXX Illegal Collection Practice What can I say? The reports on this company when you XXXX them are shocking and the company has been sued in all 50 states. At my last knowledge banned in 2 states for abusive and illegal practices.The use court documents to intimidate consumers into releasing personal information. The documents are legit, they are used in court but the trick is XXXX  does n't file them as required by law and they seem to forget that a JUDGE NEEDS TO SIGN the document before they can send a subpeona. They ca n't forge some signature and there will be a raised seal on the document. Ohio debt collector XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX is the defendant in a second class action filed on XX/XX/XXXX, this time in Pennsylvania federal court, alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ). The plaintiff in this case claims the defendant sent her a collection demand letter that misleadingly implied through its letterhead that attorneys at law had reviewed her account. The lawsuit alleges including language in a collection notice implying attorney involvement when there is none is a misrepresentation that violates the FDCPA. Case XXXX Document XXXX Filed XX/XX/XXXX Page 2 of 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION XXXX XXXX XXXX , individually and on behalf of a class, Plaintiff, v. XXXX, XXXX & XXXX XXXX XXXX MICHIGAN d/b/a XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, ; and XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Defendants. Case No. XXXXXXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX ( S.D. Ohio XX/XX/XXXX ) U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio - XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX ( S.D. Ohio XX/XX/XXXX ) XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, v. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, Defendant. No. XXXX. United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division. XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, OH, for XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, IL, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX, OH, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, OH, for Defendant. *1094 DECISION AND ENTRY SUSTAINING PLAINTIFF 'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PERFECT SERVICE OF PROCESS OUT OF TIME ( DOC. # 13 ) ; DEFENDANT 'S MOTION TO DISMISS, PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12 ( B ) ( 5 ) ( PORTION OF DOC. # 9 ), IS OVERRULED ; DEFENDANT 'S MOTION TO DISMISS, PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12 ( B ) ( 6 ) ( PORTION OF DOC. # 9 ), IS SUSTAINED ; PLAINTIFF IS GRANTED LEAVE TO FILE, WITHIN TWENTY ( 20 ) DAYS FROM DATE, AN AMENDED COMPLAINT, CONSISTENT WITH THIS DECISION AND SUBJECT TO THE STRICTURES OF FED. R. CIV. P. 11 ; SHOULD PLAINTIFF ELECT NOT TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN SAID TIME PERIOD, THE CAPTIONED CAUSE WILL BE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE RICE, Chief Judge.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation