vivekkopthsd/cfpb-consumer-complaints huggingface dataset:
Consumer complaint received 2026-04-28 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Managing an account — Problem making or receiving payments
Company: SOFI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
State: DC

Complaint narrative:
Administrative Block I am reporting a systemic processing error. The merchant ( XXXX ) has authorized and initiated a refund for a transaction. However, SoFi is technically blocking the incoming merchant-authorized credit due to an outdated internal 'dispute lock ' from XXXX. I have contacted SoFi to request they lift this administrative barrier to allow the merchant-initiated funds to clear, but they issued a final denial on XX/XX/XXXX, without addressing the technical block. I am requesting that the company be required to accept the incoming credit from the merchant. Specifically, I am reporting a processing error regarding a blocked merchant refund of {$1400.00}. SoFi has issued a denial based on investigative documents from XX/XX/XXXX ( Sequence # XXXX ) which only confirm the original delivery. However, the merchant ( XXXX ) has recently authorized a NEW refund due to a subsequent product failure. SoFi 's specialized 'High Dollar ' dispute lock from XXXX is technically preventing the merchant from successfully transmitting the current authorized credit. I am requesting that SoFi be compelled to lift the administrative lock and accept the incoming merchant-authorized funds. Lastly, The company provided investigative documents from XX/XX/XXXX ( Sequence # XXXX ) which only address the original delivery of the merchandise. However, this is a systemic processing error : the merchant ( XXXX ) has recently authorized a NEW refund due to a subsequent product failure. SoFi is technically blocking this incoming merchant-authorized credit because of an administrative 'dispute lock ' linked to the XXXX investigation. I am not disputing the XXXX charge ; I am reporting a failure to process a current merchant-authorized credit. I request that SoFi lift the legacy lock and accept the incoming funds.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation
Consumer complaint received 2026-04-28 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Problem with a lender or other company charging your account — Transaction was not authorized
Company: CITIBANK, N.A.
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
I am submitting this complaint regarding Citibanks handling of scam induced XXXX transactions. I contacted Citibank after realizing I had been deceived into sending money through XXXX under false pretenses. Although I authorized the transfers, they were made as a direct result of fraud and misrepresentation by the recipient. When I contacted Citibank to report the incident, I was informed that my claim was immediately denied solely because I authorized the XXXX payments. I made multiple attempts to dispute the transactions and requested that a fraud claim be opened ; however, no investigation was conducted. I was not provided an opportunity to submit supporting documentation, screenshots, or any evidence showing that the payments were induced by deception. I understand that the transaction was authorized however, they were authorized under fraudulent circumstances. I expected Citibank to open a fraud claim and review the surrounding circumstances, including my communications with the recipient, the representations that led to the payments, and whether the receiving account may be associated with scam activity. Instead, I was informed that because I authorized the transactions, my claim was denied, and no effort was made to investigate or allow me to submit supporting evidence. Citibanks decision to immediately deny the claim without conducting an investigation effectively prevented any review of whether fraud occurred. This is especially concerning given that scam-induced authorized payments are widely recognized forms of consumer fraud. I promptly contacted Citibank once I realized I had been deceived and attempted multiple times to dispute the transactions, but my requests were not meaningfully reviewed. I am requesting that Citibank reopen this matter, accept and investigate the claim as a fraud case, review the XXXX recipient account for potential scam activity, and allow me to submit supporting documentation. I am also requesting clarification of Citibanks policy regarding scam induced authorized payments and whether customers are entitled to an investigation when funds are sent under deception.

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 explanation
Consumer complaint received 2026-04-28 00:00:00
Product: Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service — Mobile or digital wallet
Issue: Trouble accessing funds in your mobile or digital wallet — 
Company: Paypal Holdings, Inc
State: IL

Complaint narrative:
I am filing a complaint regarding ongoing failures with PayPals Payouts API that have prevented successful transactions and disrupted business operations. Beginning approximately XX/XX/XXXX, payout transactions initiated through the PayPal Payouts API have been repeatedly declined. These failures are not due to user error or configuration issues. After extensive troubleshooting, I identified that the declines are being triggered by PayPals internal risk review system. I provided PayPal with a detailed report documenting the issue, including evidence that the failures originate from internal risk flags or restrictions within their system. Despite this, PayPal has not provided a clear explanation, has not corrected the issue, and has not restored normal payout functionality. I have contacted PayPal support multiple times over the course of nearly one month. Responses have been inconsistent or non-actionable, and the issue remains unresolved. This problem is preventing access to funds and the ability to distribute payments, directly impacting business operations and causing financial harm. Requested Resolution : Immediate resolution of the internal restriction causing payout failures Restoration of full Payouts API functionality A clear written explanation of the risk review flags or restrictions applied to my account Despite providing PayPal with evidence identifying the root cause within their own system, no corrective action has been taken.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation
Consumer complaint received 2026-04-28 00:00:00
Product: Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service — Domestic (US) money transfer
Issue: Fraud or scam — 
Company: Paypal Holdings, Inc
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
On XX/XX/XXXX a fraudulent charge of {$3000.00} was posted to my XXXX account. I did not authorize the transaction and it was directed to a recipient I do not know. XXXX paid out the amount, clearing out my balance ( a few XXXX dollars ) and leaving me with a - {$2700.00} account balance. They then immediately began collections activity against me to demand that I pay that amount. I immediately filed a fraud dispute and changed my password. XXXX automatically denied the dispute, claiming it was " consistent with my spending habits ''. I filed an appeal with their customer service department, but they denied this appeal too, claiming that the transaction had originated from my phone. My phone was in my possession that whole day and I can attest that neither I nor somebody else submitted that transaction from that device. Now they are not offering any additional dispute mechanisms, and are instead insisting that I pay the fraudulent charge, despite their XXXX claiming that they will protect me against unauthorized / fraudulent transactions. XXXX did not respond by email to requests for detailed documentation about why they denied this appeal, and their customer service team also did not share any documentation via phone, so I'm attaching only the original automatic denial and the appeal letter that I filed to them.

Company response to consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief
Consumer complaint received 2026-04-28 00:00:00
Product: Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service — Virtual currency
Issue: Other transaction problem — 
Company: FISERV FINXACT CORE
State: DC

Complaint narrative:
Our company name is XXXX XXXX XXXX, locate in Washington DC. There was a customer acted in bad faith and dispute all her money back after she received the product and services from us. She used XXXX, which is her credit card company, disputed the chargeback with Clover. There were copy of digital receipts she made the payment stored on Clover, so I don't understand why Clover couldn't protect our right. With all her lies, she got the money back and we were unfairly lost without proper investigation. I called Clover customer service many times and requested to send more evidence but there was no response. They asked us to talk to the customer directly. How ca we talk to the customer as she was the one who scammed us by lying and got her money back. We are very upset and disappointed of how Clover handles the situation. If every customer like her, we will lose money after all our hard work and won't be able to operate the business anymore. We feel very unfair as our right wasn't protected. We request proper investigation to get our money back.

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 explanation
Consumer complaint received 2026-04-28 00:00:00
Product: Credit card — Store credit card
Issue: Problem with a purchase shown on your statement — Card was charged for something you did not purchase with the card
Company: TD BANK US HOLDING COMPANY
State: IL

Complaint narrative:
After reporting the charge to Nordstrom and requesting an investigation, I was informed that the company determined the purchase was made by me. However, Nordstrom has not provided any documentation or evidence supporting this conclusion despite my request for proof. 1. XX/XX/XXXX XXXX, {$2100.00} 3. Nordstrom provisionally temporarily credited on XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX Nordstrom reverse the {$2100.00} and place it back to the credit card.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation
Consumer complaint received 2026-04-28 00:00:00
Product: Vehicle loan or lease — Loan
Issue: Getting a loan or lease — Confusing or misleading advertising or marketing
Company: WELLS FARGO & COMPANY
State: MD

Complaint narrative:
I get a phone call from Wells Fargo auto department cant defend himself from a woman named XXXX very disrespectful talk down answer some of her questions. She didnt like my answers. She talked to me like I was a little child very disrespectful. She taught to me like she was a XXXX XXXX and punishing her XXXX. I do not appreciate that. Im well educated. I know what I can do what I cant do. You aint gon na talk to me like that and I end the conversation.

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 explanation
Consumer complaint received 2026-04-28 00:00:00
Product: Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service — Mobile or digital wallet
Issue: Fraud or scam — 
Company: Chime Financial Inc
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
On XX/XX/year>, I was induced into sending a total of {$390.00} through my Chime account as a result of fraudulent misrepresentation/scam activity. I believed I was engaging in a legitimate transaction at the time based on deceptive information provided to me. After discovering the fraud, I promptly reported the issue and requested a dispute. My claim was denied, but I believe the investigation was incomplete and did not properly account for the deceptive nature of the transaction or the circumstances that led to it. I am requesting a full reinvestigation under Regulation E and the Electronic Fund Transfer Act. The transaction ( s ) were not made with informed consent based on accurate information, and I would not have proceeded had I known the true nature of the situation. I am requesting full reimbursement of the {$390.00}, along with a written explanation of the denial decision and copies of any documentation used to support it.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation
Consumer complaint received 2026-04-28 00:00:00
Product: Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service — Mobile or digital wallet
Issue: Unauthorized transactions or other transaction problem — 
Company: Block, Inc.
State: AR

Complaint narrative:
Between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/year>, multiple Add Money transactions were made using my linked debit card in amounts including {$1000.00}, {$200.00}, {$25.00}, {$400.00}, {$300.00}, {$50.00}, {$30.00}, and {$100.00}. These transactions were not initiated or authorized by me. I immediately disputed these transactions with my bank. After investigation, my bank determined the transactions were unauthorized and reversed the charges in my favor. Following this, Cash App reversed the funds and is now attempting to hold me responsible by placing my account into a negative balance for the same amount. They have stated they can not reopen the dispute and are requiring me to repay funds that were confirmed to be unauthorized. I did not authorize these transactions, did not benefit from them, and should not be held financially responsible for fraudulent activity conducted through their platform. Cash App has failed to properly protect my account and is now attempting to recover funds from a victim of unauthorized transactions rather than addressing how the fraud occurred. This situation has caused financial stress, time loss, and concern over the security of my financial information.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation
Consumer complaint received 2026-04-28 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Rental debt
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt was result of identity theft
Company: ProCollect, Inc.
State: IL

Complaint narrative:
On XX/XX/XXXX, Pro Collect, Inc. placed a collection account on my XXXX credit report in the amount of {$11000.00}, allegedly on behalf of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, a property located in Florida. I have never resided in Florida. I have never entered into any lease agreement with XXXX at XXXX XXXX XXXX or any Florida-based property. This account was opened fraudulently using my personal identifying information without my knowledge or consent. This is a matter of identity theft. On XX/XX/XXXX, I filed an official Identity Theft Report with the Federal Trade Commission at IdentityTheft.gov confirming that this account is the result of fraudulent use of my identity. I have also filed a dispute with XXXX under FCRA 1681c-2, which requires that any information resulting from identity theft be blocked within 4 business days of receipt of the required documentation not the standard 30-day investigation timeline. Pro Collect, Inc. has no legal basis to collect this alleged debt from me as I am the victim of identity theft and bear no contractual liability for any lease agreement executed fraudulently in my name. Their continued reporting of this fraudulent collection account constitutes the following violations : Violation 1 FCRA 1681c-2 : XXXX is required to block this tradeline within 4 business days of receiving my Identity Theft Report and dispute. Continued reporting beyond that deadline is a violation. Violation 2 FCRA 1681s-2 ( b ) : Pro Collect as the furnisher has been notified of this identity theft dispute and is legally obligated to investigate and delete this tradeline immediately upon verification that it results from identity theft. Violation 3 FDCPA 1692e : Attempting to collect a debt from an identity theft victim through credit reporting constitutes a false, deceptive, and misleading representation. Violation 4 FDCPA 1692g : Pro Collect has failed to validate this alleged debt upon demand while continuing collection activity including credit reporting. I am requesting that the CFPB immediately investigate Pro Collect , Inc. 's collection and reporting practices, require deletion of this fraudulent tradeline from my XXXX credit report, and investigate how this fraudulent lease was executed using my personal identifying information. I am also requesting that the CFPB investigate whether XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and Pro Collect , Inc. have implemented adequate identity verification procedures to prevent the fraudulent use of consumer identities.

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 explanation
Consumer complaint received 2026-04-28 00:00:00
Product: Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service — Mobile or digital wallet
Issue: Unauthorized transactions or other transaction problem — 
Company: WELLS FARGO & COMPANY
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
On XX/XX/year>, I attempted to send a XXXX payment in the amount of {$920.00} through Wells Fargo to a XXXX XXXX. I entered the phone number provided by the contractor into the Wells Fargo XXXX system. No recipient was found associated with that phone number. The system then prompted me to add a recipient. After typing in XXXX XXXX, the system immediately generated and suggested a XXXX recipient labeled XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Based on this system-generated suggestion, I reasonably believed the platform had identified the correct XXXX account associated with the phone number I had initially entered. I selected this suggested recipient and completed the transaction. After sending the payment, I discovered that the funds were sent to an unintended and unrelated party. I immediately contacted Wells Fargo and filed a claim the same day. Wells Fargo later denied my claim, stating that the transaction was completed as requested and sent to the account associated with the phone number or email I provided. This statement is inaccurate. I did not provide any phone number or email associated with the recipient XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. The recipient was selected solely based on Wells Fargos system-generated suggestion after my initial phone number search returned no results. Wells Fargo representatives have acknowledged that the transaction was completed without a verified phone number or email match tied to my input. Despite this, Wells Fargo has refused to take responsibility for the system behavior that led to the misdirected payment. Wells Fargo stated they contacted the recipients bank on XX/XX/year>, and again on XX/XX/year>, requesting a return of funds, but they have not received a response. Wells Fargo has also refused to provide any identifying information for the recipient or further assist in recovery. Since the transaction, the recipient has deactivated their XXXX profile and can no longer be located through the system. This issue was not caused by user error, but by misleading system design. The Wells Fargo XXXX interface suggested an unverified recipient that was not linked to the phone number I entered, leading directly to the loss of funds. I am requesting reimbursement of the {$920.00} and a full investigation into how Wells Fargos system generated and presented an unverified recipient as a suggested match.

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 explanation
Consumer complaint received 2026-04-28 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Incorrect information on your report — Account information incorrect
Company: TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
The following accounts are fraudulent and I want these removed from my credit report immediately XXXX XXXX - XXXX and 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 explanation
Consumer complaint received 2026-04-28 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Credit card debt
Issue: Electronic communications — Frequent or repeated messages
Company: Halsted Financial Services, LLC.
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
Hi, I had a closed account from XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX ) regarding a loan, and I had an agreement with another company to pay off this debt. Apparently, this debt was sold off to another company named Hlasted financial services. This company emails me multiple times a day over and over... every single day regardless of if its during the week or the weekend. I think its very excessive and according to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act it prohibits harassments to collect a debt and the way the email over and over multiple times a day is a form of harassment. I have attached documentation and its just a small sample size of what I get multiple times a day every single day.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation
Consumer complaint received 2026-04-28 00:00:00
Product: Credit card — General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Problem with a purchase shown on your statement — Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement
Company: JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.
State: CO

Complaint narrative:
I am disputing a total of {$660.00} for travel services ( a cruise scheduled for XX/XX/XXXX ) that will not be provided. The merchant, XXXX XXXX XXXX, admitted in writing on XX/XX/XXXX, that they can not fulfill the booking. This merchant is currently under formal investigation by the XXXX Department of Agriculture ( FDACS ), Case # XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, I contacted Chase Bank via the dispute department and a physical branch. I spoke with agents XXXX and XXXX. Chase refused to open a " Services Not Rendered '' dispute ( Visa/Mastercard Reason Code 13.1 ), claiming the XXXX and XXXX transactions exceed a " XXXX system limit. '' This is a violation of the Fair Credit Billing Act and card network rules. For future-dated services, the XXXX dispute clock begins on the date of the breach ( XX/XX/XXXX ) or the date of service, not the transaction date. Furthermore, the {$270.00} transaction from XX/XX/XXXX is only XXXX days old and is within even Chase 's internal XXXX window. I am requesting that Chase bypass the automated system limit and perform a manual investigation into these charges.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation
Consumer complaint received 2026-04-28 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Payday loan debt
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt is not yours
Company: FOOTHILL CAPITAL SOLUTIONS LLC
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
I got a call from foothill capital saying that I had a payday loan. I have never had a payday loan. I requested a copy of the debt and they would not send me one.

Company public response: Company believes complaint caused principally by actions of third party outside the control or direction of the company
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation