Consumer complaint received 2026-05-15 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Opening an account — Unable to open an account
Company: CULLEN/FROST BANKERS, INC.
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
SUPPLEMENTAL EVIDENCE ADDENDUM to complaint # XXXX and XXXX I. On XX/XX/XXXX, an authorized representative of XXXX XXXX physically entered a Frost Bank XXXX XXXX to execute a formal, joint in-person CRA Public File request and a Full Consumer File Disclosure under 15 U.S.C. 1681g for my entity, XXXX XXXX. Upon entry, branch personnel explicitly stated they did not maintain a physical CRA public binder or localized files on-site for immediate public view, offering only online access. The branch personnel, identified by XXXX XXXX, actively attempted to evade his regulatory obligations by offering to show our representative how to look up the public files on her own personal mobile phone. Our representative declined this off-site alternative and requested an in-person, on-site physical review. The refusal to print the files or provide a bank-owned public terminal constitutes a direct, structural violation of Federal Reserve Regulation BB ( 12 CFR 228.43 ( b ) ( 2 ) ), which mandates that every individual branch make specific localized CRA data available for physical inspection on-site. II. Establishment of Statutory Deadline Subsequently, the banks internal systems accepted the tracking request, generating an official corporate email printout from their terminal ( Attached as Exhibit 1, with the handling banker 's corporate business card stapled directly to the record ). As documented in this communication, Frost Banks Corporate CRA Department has officially acknowledged the demand and confirmed they are compiling the file to be shipped to the business mailing address : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, TX XXXX. Pursuant to federal law, this triggers a hard five ( 5 ) calendar day statutory deadline, which expires on Tuesday, XX/XX/XXXX. III. Disproving the " Online Presence '' Pretext Subsequently to the bank 's initial denial of our business account because they claimed they were " not able to find the site online, '' and then shifting the denial reason to " I just dont feel comfortable opening an account for you, '' the twelve ( 12 ) masked real-time pings prove the bank was more than capable of vetting the business presence online. We captured eight ( 8 ) real time notifications yesterday, XX/XX/XXXX, subsequently the day after the bank requested a 60 day extension to respond to our CFPB complaint, and four ( 4 ) real time notifications today, XX/XX/XXXX, immediately following our branch visit. All twelve ( 12 ) of these real-time notifications completely disappeared from our historical XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX indicating that these visits originate from high-level technical network architecture, automated compliance scraping bots, vpn, or corporate proxy firewalls designed to intentionally bypass tracking visibility. IV. Documentation of Intentional Bias & Disparate Treatment Further establishing a pattern of intentional obstruction and personal bias : It is imperative to note, the Financial Center Manager present at this second branch today was the same individual who issued the initial pretextual denial at the Hardwood location, who refused to give out his business card, instead writing his name on a scrap of paper, identified as XXXX XXXX, ( Exhibit 2 ). Upon recognizing our representative, the manager immediately retreated to a back office for the duration of the encounter. His presence at a different location while continuing to facilitate the violation of 12 CFR 228.43 proves that the denial of entity, XXXX XXXX, is not a result of 'bank policy, ' but a targeted, discriminatory campaign fueled by the manager 's previously stated 'discomfort ' regarding my visible XXXX and the presence of my XXXX XXXX XXXX. Furthermore, the attached corporate email ( Exhibit 1 ) printout proves immediate profiling and prejudice by Frost Bank staff. The banker explicitly labeled our representative as a " non-member, '' despite the fact that she never provided a personal name, identity, or showed any identification. This proves branch personnel immediately prejudge and profile individuals associated with our entity, matching the manager 's prior discriminatory behavior regarding my XXXX companion. V. Telemetry & Corporate Escalation This vanishing telemetry conclusively establishes that Frost Bank utilized a completely fabricated, pretextual reason to deny the business account and discriminate against me, explicitly citing personal discomfort due to " my XXXX communication companion '' who was present to assist with my visible XXXX. Further demonstrating immediate corporate escalation, at exactly XXXX XXXX CDT on XX/XX/XXXX, an outside line tracking to an unlisted digital risk proxy ( XXXX ) initiated a direct call to the business XXXXnumber listed on our website, hanging up without leaving a voicemail ( Exhibit 4 ). This real-time corporate profiling completely refutes the bank 's original claim that our infrastructure could not be located online. VI. Formal Requests for Action I formally request that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau take the following actions in coordination with the XXXX Federal Reserve : Audit for Disparate Treatment : Investigate the pretextual claim of being unable to find the business online, and the subsequent shift to the discomfort cited by branch management,. Investigate Unorthodox Investigatory Conduct : Review the high-frequency, masked network pings ( Exhibit 3 ) and the digital proxy call ( Exhibit 4 ) that occurred immediately following my regulatory requests. I request the CFPB determine if these actions constitute irregular surveillance intended to intimidate a consumer for exercising their rights. Enforce Compliance Deadlines : Monitor the banks adherence to the XX/XX/XXXX, statutory deadline they acknowledged for the production of my Full Consumer File Disclosure and CRA Public File. Review Profiling Practices : Evaluate the banks internal labeling of business representatives as " non-members '' ( Exhibit 1 ) to determine if this practice facilitates systemic profiling and disparate treatment of minority-owned entities. * Exhibit XXXX : XXXX XXXX real-time notifications ( XX/XX/XXXX ) showing high-frequency pings immediately following regulatory requests. * Exhibit 4 : Business call log showing the XXXX XXXX incoming call from the digital proxy line ( XXXX ), contradicting the banks claim of an " unverifiable '' online presence. * Exhibit 5 : Email acknowledgment from the Federal Reserve Board dated XX/XX/XXXX, confirming the transfer of complaints ( filed XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX ) to the XXXX Federal Reserve Office for investigation

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation