Consumer complaint received 2026-05-29 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Credit card debt
Issue: Took or threatened to take negative or legal action — Threatened or suggested your credit would be damaged
Company: AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY
State: KS

Complaint narrative:
American Express sent me a Fraud Operations letter dated XX/XX/year> for account ending in XXXX, dispute reference number XXXX. In that letter, American Express stated that it was unable to accept my fraud claim because payments were made on the account. American Express further stated : By making payments, you have accepted liability for this account. American Express claimed that payments were made from my XXXX XXXX XXXX account. I dispute this denial in full. This letter is another collection-related act and fraud-claim denial based on a false, misleading, and unsupported assumption : that payment activity automatically proves liability. It does not. American Express should not claim that payments were made proves that I accepted liability. A payment from a disputed or compromised bank account does not prove that I opened, authorized, used, benefited from, ratified, or accepted liability for an American Express account. American Express should not claim that XXXX payment activity proves authorization. I have already disputed the XXXX payment source as compromised. My FTC Identity Theft Report No. XXXX states that the disputed American Express account number XXXX and related account ending in XXXX were not opened, authorized, used, or ratified by me. I also provided a XXXX fraud alert showing fraud monitoring was triggered on my debit card ending in XXXX. American Express is ignoring the exact evidence that undermines its payment-liability theory. American Express should not claim that payment equals ratification. Ratification requires knowing and voluntary acceptance. American Express has not shown that I knowingly made the payments, intended to accept liability, understood the payments to be for a valid AmEx account, or benefited from the account. Payment activity from a disputed or compromised source is not consent. American Express should not claim this was a complete fraud investigation. The XX/XX/XXXX letter does not provide an original application, signed agreement, identity-verification records, IP address records, device records, phone number records, email records, card-delivery records, activation records, transaction-level evidence, or any proof that I personally opened, authorized, used, benefited from, or ratified the account. American Express simply points to payment activity and then leaps to liability. American Express should not claim that the XXXX account being in my name ends the inquiry. Identity theft often involves real personal and banking information. The question is not whether my information or bank account appeared in AmExs records. The question is whether I personally opened, authorized, used, benefited from, or knowingly ratified the American Express account. American Express has not proven that. American Express should not ignore the account-number chain. My identity-theft dispute involves the related American Express account chain, including account number XXXX and related account endings XXXX and XXXX. American Express can not isolate one account ending, point to payment activity, and ignore the broader identity-theft record and prior CFPB complaints. American Express should not claim this is resolved because it already reviewed its records. A review that ignores the FTC Identity Theft Report, ignores the XXXX fraud alert, ignores the compromised payment-source issue, and treats disputed payment activity as liability is not a fair investigation. It seems like American Express is omitting material facts, deceiving the consumer and regulator, and using a potentially fraudulent theory to make an identity-theft victim appear liable. American Express should not claim this is merely a private fraud denial with no consumer-protection issue. This letter creates the false impression that I owe the account and that my fraud claim is invalid because payment activity occurred. That is collection-related pressure, especially when American Express has continued to bill, collect, litigate, assign, report, or otherwise treat the disputed account chain as valid. American Express should not claim that litigation or prior responses excuse this conduct. Litigation does not erase identity theft. A prior CFPB response does not prove liability. Prior denial of a fraud claim does not make the denial accurate. This XX/XX/XXXX letter is a new written denial that repeats the same flawed and misleading payment-liability theory after American Express had notice of my identity-theft evidence. American Expresss conduct appears unfair, deceptive, abusive, and potentially fraudulent because it creates the false impression that I owe the account simply because payments were made from a XXXX account, even though I have specifically identified the XXXX activity as compromised. American Express is using disputed payment activity as a shortcut to deny fraud while failing to prove that I opened, authorized, used, benefited from, or ratified the account. This conduct raises FCRA concerns, including concerns under 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( A ), because American Express should have reasonable procedures to respond to identity-theft notices and prevent refurnishing or continuing to treat blocked identity-theft information as valid. It also raises concerns under 15 U.S.C. 1681m ( f ) ( 1 ) if American Express has sold, transferred, placed, or continued placing the alleged debt for collection after notice that the debt resulted from identity theft. I dispute the account, the alleged balance, the payment-liability theory, the XX/XX/XXXX fraud denial, and any collection, reporting, litigation, assignment, sale, transfer, or enforcement activity based on this account. I did not open, authorize, use, benefit from, ratify, or accept liability for this American Express account.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation