Consumer complaint received 2025-06-06 00:00:00
Product: Credit card — General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Closing your account — Company closed your account
Company: WELLS FARGO & COMPANY
State: NV

Complaint narrative:
This complaint is submitted following Wells Fargo Banks failure to remedy a series of unlawful, retaliatory, and procedurally flawed actions taken in response to a valid billing dispute filed under the Fair Credit Billing Act ( FCBA ), 15 U.S.C. 1666, and Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. 1026.13.

I. Factual Background The dispute concerned a {$350.00} charge from XXXX XXXX for merchandise never received. Wells Fargo initially denied the billing dispute despite the clear criteria for non-receipt of goods under FCBA. Following submission of documentation and a CFPB complaint, the bank reversed its position on XX/XX/XXXX, confirming that I was not liable for the charge. 

Despite this, Wells Fargo closed both credit card accounts associated with the dispute : XXXX ending in XXXX XXXX XXXX ending in XXXX Both accounts were in good standing, with no history of late payments, misuse, or credit risk indicators. 

These closures : Occurred during or immediately after the dispute process, Were justified only with vague risk-based language, Were executed before resolution of the billing error, in apparent violation of Regulation Z, And have not been corrected despite reversal of the underlying charge. 

Repeated efforts to clarify internal flags, confirm reinstatement eligibility, and resolve reputational harm were ignored. Wells Fargo failed to respond to a formal escalation submitted to its Executive Office on XX/XX/XXXX, which requested corrective action by XX/XX/XXXX. 



II. Legal and Regulatory Violations Wells Fargos actions reflect a systemic disregard for consumer protection obligations under multiple laws : 1. Fair Credit Billing Act 15 U.S.C. 1666 Creditors may not penalize or retaliate against a cardholder for asserting a valid billing dispute. Closing an account during the pendency of a dispute or after a dispute is resolved in the consumers favor constitutes a prima facie violation of this statute.

2. Regulation Z 12 C.F.R. 1026.13 ( d ) Expressly prohibits creditors from accelerating, restricting, or closing accounts while a billing error investigation is pending.

3. UDAAP 12 U.S.C. 5531 Wells Fargos conduct constitutes an unfair and abusive act or practice under the Consumer Financial Protection Act. It chills protected consumer rights and leverages discretionary contract language to retaliate against dispute activity. 
4. In re CFPB v. Fifth Third Bank, N.A., Case No. 1:20-cv-01683 ( S.D. Ohio ) CFPB enforcement against retaliatory internal account practices establishes precedent. This case reflects a similar pattern of institutional retaliation and opaque internal blacklisting after dispute activity.

5. Gambardella v. G. Fox & Co., 716 F. Supp. 67 ( D. Conn. 1989 ) Federal court ruled that retaliation for exercising FCBA rights constitutes an independent violation, regardless of contractual account closure rights.

6. FCRA 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 Wells Fargo acknowledged reporting minor inconsistencies, yet failed to disclose what reputational or coded data may remain internally, which may continue to harm access to credit and services.

III. Pattern of Harm and Escalation Justification This matter has escalated due to Wells Fargos continued refusal to engage, despite the following : The original denial was overturned, confirming the banks initial investigation was flawed or conducted in bad faith ; The account closures occurred during a protected dispute, in direct contradiction of FCBA and Regulation Z ; The bank continues to withhold any justification, declines to confirm or deny internal reputational flags, and has failed to respond by the consumer-provided deadline ; All evidence points to a pattern of automated or retaliatory closures used to deter future billing challenges.

This behavior undermines the intent of federal consumer laws. If allowed to persist without enforcement intervention, it signals to all consumers that exercising legal rights under the FCBA may result in closed accounts, lost credit access, and reputational damagewith no recourse. 



Requested Relief I request the following corrective actions : 1. Reopen the credit card accounts ending in XXXX and XXXX, or provide written confirmation that all internal flags, blacklist indicators, and reputational restrictions have been removed. 
2. Provide a written explanationwith internal notes or decision criteriaof the basis for account closures after the billing dispute was reversed in my favor.

3. Affirm that all credit reporting has been corrected, and that no derogatory metadata or coded status remains with any credit bureau or internal Wells Fargo system.

4. Refer this matter for regulatory review as a potential case of UDAAP retaliation, FCBA process failure, and pattern-level suppression of billing rights.

Final Statement and Reservation of Rights Wells Fargo has now failed to engage with multiple formal communications. Their internal investigation was overturned, yet they persist in denying reinstatement, clarity, or correction. The use of discretionary risk-based language as a post hoc defense for punitive action following protected activity violates both the letter and spirit of consumer law. 

If resolution is not forthcoming, I reserve the right to initiate formal arbitration under the cardholder agreement and seek discovery on account closure protocols, internal reputational coding, and retaliation metrics tied to dispute behavior. 

All rights remain fully reserved. 

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

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