Consumer complaint received 2024-09-24 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Credit card debt
Issue: False statements or representation — Attempted to collect wrong amount
Company: AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY
State: WI

Complaint narrative:
This formal complaint is lodged against American Express for its continued failure to comply with the debt verification and substantiation obligations imposed under 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ). In XX/XX/year>, I formally submitted a demand for full disclosure of financial records related to an alleged debt. In response, American Express explicitly stated it was unable to grant [ my ] request for Debt Validation. Instead of providing the legally mandated documentation, American Express furnished transaction history reports which do not meet the statutory threshold for debt substantiation. These reports merely reflect historical account activity and fail to establish the documented liability or to prove the enforceability of the alleged debt under applicable federal law.

Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ), all collection activities must be immediately suspended until the creditor provides proper verification of liability. This validation must include an executed contractual agreement demonstrating mutual consent between the parties, as well as proof of reciprocal consideration. Specifically, American Express must demonstrate that it extended credit from its own reserves or incurred a documented financial liability as a result of the cardholder 's actions. The transaction history reports provided are legally insufficient and fail to meet this requirement, as they do not substantiate the origin or validity of the alleged obligation. 

Further, American Express referenced the Cardmember Agreement ( CMA ) as the basis for its claim. However, under federal law and consistent judicial precedent, the CMAwhile outlining account termsdoes not satisfy the legal standard for validating a debt under 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ). The inclusion of a " promise to pay '' clause within the CMA does not create a legally enforceable debt without reciprocal consideration. Judicial rulings consistently affirm that transaction history reports and general account agreements such as the CMA are inadequate for debt validation unless accompanied by additional documented evidence of mutual consideration and legally binding terms. 

In addition, American Express has violated the Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ) under XXXX U.S.C. XXXX ( a ), which requires clear and transparent disclosure of the total amount financed and any associated finance charges. American Express has failed to provide such disclosures in my case, raising further concerns regarding the legality and enforceability of the alleged debt. 

As the Principal in this financial arrangement, I have provided tangible consideration in the form of a " promise to pay, '' which serves as the underlying asset for the extension of credit. However, American Express has failed to reciprocate by providing evidence that it extended credit from its reserves or incurred any liability. Without this proof, the alleged debt remains legally unenforceable due to the absence of mutual consideration, a requirement for forming a valid contract. 

Despite these legal shortcomings, American Express has continued its collection activities and adverse reporting to consumer reporting agencies. These actions represent clear violations of the FDCPA, as all collection and reporting activities must cease until proper validation of the debt is furnished. By continuing to report and collect on an unvalidated debt, American Express is acting without legal standing to enforce or report the alleged obligation.

Company response to consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief