Consumer complaint received 2026-05-14 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Savings account
Issue: Managing an account — Funds not handled or disbursed as instructed
Company: U.S. BANCORP
State: WA

Complaint narrative:
I. FORMAL CHARGE OF SYSTEMIC NEGLIGENCE AND UDAAP VIOLATIONS This is a second, escalated complaint. U.S. Banks previous response ( Case # XXXXXXXX ) was a display of gross negligence and " Scripted Deflection. '' The response, signed by an XXXX, contained a major factual errorclaiming an account conversion occurred in XX/XX/XXXX ( a year before the dispute ). This proves U.S. Bank is not performing good-faith investigations but is instead issuing boilerplate responses to federal regulators. II. UNILATERAL DECEPTION AND E-SIGN VIOLATION The bank unilaterally terminated a credit card used as a fee-waiver instrument without providing a digital disclosure to a 100 % paperless customer. The bank asserts " regulatory requirements '' for paper mail but fails to cite any statute that overrides the E-Sign Act or Paragraph 3 of their own Digital Services Agreement ( DSA ), which contractually promises digital notification for material changes. III. ADMISSION OF SYSTEMIC ALERT FAILURE In their previous response, the bank admitted their email alert system works by citing an alert from XX/XX/XXXX. I charge the bank with Forensic Negligence : they have failed to provide the SMTP Relay Logs explaining why the system failed to trigger on XX/XX/XXXX, when the account first became negative. This failure directly caused eight months of financial damage. IV. BAD-FAITH BRANCH TRAPPING & HARASSMENT I charge XXXX XXXX branch staff, XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX with professional harassment. They facilitated an appointment on XX/XX/XXXX that required a XXXX round-trip commute from XXXX. They allowed me to enter the branch despite knowing the manager would offer zero resolution. This was a deliberate attempt to " wear down '' a XXXX professional through physical and administrative exhaustion. V. ABUSIVE " XXXX '' TACTICS On XX/XX/XXXX, I demanded the immediate closure of the account. The bank refused, claiming a " XXXX '' delay. This is an Abusive Practice under the Dodd-Frank Act : U.S. Bank is taking unreasonable advantage of my inability to protect my interests by forcing the account to remain open to accrue additional fees on a disputed balance. VI. FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION IN FEDERAL RESPONSE " In their response to my previous filing ( Case # XXXX ), U.S. Bank claimed that an attempt was made to contact me on XX/XX/XXXX. I have checked my phone logs and email records forensicly ; no such contact attempt exists. I charge U.S. Bank with providing fraudulent misrepresentations to a federal regulator to conceal their failure to honor manager callback promises. This demonstrates a complete lack of ethical integrity in their XXXX Complaints division. '' VII. BAIT-AND-SWITCH / PREDATORY SALES PRIORITIZATION " There is a disturbing disconnect between U.S. Banks sales and service departments. When I expressed interest in XXXX XXXX, a sales executive ( XXXX XXXX ) reached out within hours. However, when it comes to correcting a {$110.00} technical disclosure error, the bank has engaged in five weeks of stalling. This is a predatory 'Bait-and-Switch ' tactic : U.S. Bank aggressively targets high-value professionals for investment assets while simultaneously using administrative friction and '24-hour stalling loops ' to prevent those same clients from recovering funds taken through system errors. '' VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE COERCION & RETALIATORY RETENTION " On XX/XX/XXXX, I provided a formal, written demand to close my account. The banks refusal to process this until XXXX is not a 'technical limit'it is Administrative Coercion. By forcing an account to remain open against a consumer 's express written will, U.S. Bank is ensuring the accrual of further fees on a disputed balance. This is retaliatory behavior intended to punish a consumer for filing a federal complaint. '' IX. DOCUMENTED REGULATORY INCOMPETENCE " The letter I received was signed by a Senior Vice President, yet it claimed my account was converted a full year before the dispute ever happened ( XX/XX/XXXX ). This is not a simple typo ; it is evidence of Gross Negligence in the bank 's internal investigation process. If U.S. Banks highest-level XXXX ' team can not accurately review a basic chronological timeline in a federal response, they can not be trusted to manage complex financial disclosures or consumer alerts. ''

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