Consumer complaint received 2026-02-03 00:00:00
Product: Credit card — General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Closing your account — Company closed your account
Company: CITIBANK, N.A.
State: IL

Complaint narrative:
XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/year> To : Citibank XXXX Macys XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Department XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, SD XXXX RE : FORMAL NOTICE OF XXXX, XXXX, FCRA, & XXXX VIOLATIONS To the Office of the XXXX : I am formally disputing the predatory mismanagement and retaliatory actions taken against my Macys American Express account. XXXX has XXXX in a series of maneuvers that violate federal consumer protection laws : XXXX. XXXX XXXX & XXXX Violations : Following a formal data breach alert, I requested a good-faith validation of transactions totaling {$1400.00} ( specifically : {$490.00}, {$490.00}, {$310.00}, {$67.00}, {$33.00}, and {$84.00} ). In immediate retaliation for this inquiry, Citibank first slashed my credit limit from {$1500.00} to {$600.00}, and subsequently closed the account entirely. Under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act ( ECOA ) and Regulation B, it is illegal to take adverse action against a consumer for exercising their right to validate a debt. Furthermore, Citibanks claim that these disputes are " too old '' is legally moot; under the FCRA Red Flags Rule and equitable tolling, I maintain the right to validate account integrity following a data breach, especially as Citibank failed to provide mandatory legal notice of my dispute rights. 

XXXX. Manufactured 386 % Utilization : After punitively lowering my limit to {$600.00}, Citibank reversed the aforementioned {$1400.00} in charges ( plus additional amounts totaling over {$2300.00} ) onto the account. This manually engineered an impossible utilization ratio of over 380 %. This was a calculated move to damage my debt-to-limit ratio across all my credit files. 

XXXX. Attempted Unauthorized Withdrawal & Credit Defamation ( XXXX Violation ) : Following the limit reduction, Citibank attempted XXXX withdraw {$1600.00} from my personal checking account without my consent. My AutoPay is set strictly for the XXXX XXXX ( ~ {$60.00} ). My financial institution declined this transfer for " non-sufficient funds, '' an error caused solely by XXXX unauthorized attempt. Furthermore, you are now reporting this account as XXXX days past due, backdating a delinquency to the period when the charges were legally suspended for investigation. This is a willful act of credit defamation. You can not report me as " XXXX '' when the delinquency was manufactured by the bank 's own unauthorized withdrawal attempts and backdating tactics. 

XXXX. Deceptive Hardship & UDAAP Violations : Your representatives initially stated I must pay a {$230.00} " ransom '' to qualify for a hardship program. Only after I stood my ground was I transferred to a different department that offered a {$50.00} per month plan. This inconsistency proves the {$230.00} demand was a deceptive and abusive trade practice ( UDAAP ) designed to extract funds on a disputed balance. 

.

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 non-monetary relief