Consumer complaint received 2026-03-11 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: AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
TO : Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) DATE : XX/XX/XXXX COMPANY : American Express ISSUE : Predatory Debt Resurrection, Retaliation, and Negligent Investigation I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I am filing this complaint to document a pattern of Unfair, Deceptive, and Abusive Acts or Practices ( UDAAP ) by American Express. Following my initial regulatory inquiries, the bank engaged in Actual Retaliation by re-categorizing a {$78000.00} construction purchase as a " Cash Advance '' to strip me of Fair Credit Billing Act ( FCBA ) protections. Furthermore, the bank has conducted a " sham '' investigation, ignoring conclusive evidence of criminal misdemeanors, manufacturer warranty exclusions, and the existence of signed legal releases that nullify the merchant 's claims. II. THE RETALIATION TIMELINE & " DEBT RESURRECTION '' XX/XX/XXXX : I filed a formal notice with the CFPB regarding merchant fraud. XX/XX/XXXX : Within XXXX hours, Amex " resurrected '' a previously settled debt of {$76000.00} and applied the predatory " XXXX XXXX '' ( XXXX XXXX ) label. The Motive : By re-labeling a " Purchase '' as " Cash, '' Amex is attempting to evade its statutory liability for merchant fraud under FCBA Section 170. This action was taken specifically to punish me for my regulatory filing. XXXX. MATHEMATICAL PROOF OF DECEPTIVE ACCOUNTING ( THE " SHAVE-OFF '' ) A forensic audit of my account ( performed by a household member with a corporate VP/Auditor background ) reveals that Amex " shaved off XXXX {$2300.00} from my total settlement payment of {$78000.00}. The Trap : Amex diverted my payment to cover minor, non-disputed purchases first. This was a calculated maneuver to leave the $ XXXX GVD debt isolated on the ledger, allowing them to trigger the retaliatory " Cash Advance '' re-categorization and high interest penalties. IV. THE " KNOWLEDGE LINK '' & NOTICE FRAUD ( EXHIBIT T ) On XX/XX/XXXX, I received a physical packet from Amex at my home in XXXXXXXX XXXX The Proof : This packet contained a " Proof of Service '' showing the merchants lawyer, XXXX XXXX, was mailing legal notices to a vacant house in XXXXXXXX XXXX. The Fraud : This proves the merchant possessed my Texas address and was communicating with me there, yet intentionally served an empty house to prevent me from receiving legal notice. Amex possessed these conflicting documents and failed to flag this as a " Notice Fraud '' violation. V. THE " WAIVER PARADOX '' & TITLE OBSTRUCTION EVIDENCE On XX/XX/XXXX, I uploaded evidence that Amex explicitly ignored. Most notably : Unconditional Waiver and Release ( Civil Code 8134 ) : I provided XXXX ( XXXX ) signed Unconditional Waivers where XXXX 's CEO, XXXX XXXX, legally released all claims to {$140000.00} of the project funds. Crucially, the merchant filed their lawsuit on XX/XX/XXXX, yet signed these Unconditional Waivers on XX/XX/XXXX. This means that even after initiating litigation for these funds, the merchant legally released their claim to them. XXXX XXXX Waivers ( Evidence of Title Hostage ) : I have obtained waivers proving the supplies were paid for in full. Crucially, I have written proof that merchant XXXX XXXX instructed the supplier NOT to share these waivers with the owners. This intentional obstruction of property title is a tool of coercion and constitutes Financial Elder Abuse. Manufacturer Determination ( XXXX XXXX # XXXX ) : The manufacturer verified that the installation failed to meet standards ( " Reverse Lap '' and " Z-flashing '' breaches ) and is excluded from warranty. " XXXX '' XXXX XXXX : XXXX claims " XXXX years in business '' on the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX In my XX/XX/XXXX evidence upload, I notified Amex that the manufacturer was placed on " Actual Notice '' of this fraud as early as XX/XX/XXXX. Furthermore, I am providing this Bureau with copies of formal notices sent to XXXX XXXX 's General Counsel ( XXXX XXXX ) on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. Despite these notices, the manufacturer has maintained a " Calculated Silence '' for over XXXX days, allowing the merchant to continue using falsified credentials. VI. INTEREST RATE FRAUD ( XXXX % vs. XXXX % ) & XXXX XXXX American Express ignored evidence that the merchant 's claim is mathematically and legally fraudulent : Interest Fraud : The merchant 's own contract ( p. XXXX ) caps interest at XXXX %. The lawsuit papers accepted by Amex claim XXXX %. This is a blatant, documented overcharge. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX & XXXX XXXX, XXXX & XXXX ) : I provided proof that the contract was executed by an unregistered salesperson ( XXXX XXXX ). Under California law, a contract signed by an unregistered individual is void. Furthermore, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ( b ) mandates the total disgorgement ( refund ) of all compensation paid to a contractor operating in violation of these licensing laws. XXXX. FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE ( CA WELF. & INST. CODE XXXX ) The merchant has engaged in Title Obstruction ( via the XXXX waiver instruction ), predatory interest overstatements, and coercion to target a senior homeowner. By providing a " XXXX XXXX '' platform to collect this illegal debt, Amex is facilitating Financial Elder Abuse. XXXX. XXXX XXXX American Express accepted a statutorily premature " Claim of XXXX '' as its sole justification for denying a dispute while demonstrably ignoring conclusive technical evidence, manufacturer determinations, and the mandatory disgorgement requirements of XXXX & XXXX XXXX. Crucially, the bank ignored that this project no longer constitutes a " XXXX XXXX '' but rather " Property Damage '' as evidenced by the documented leaks, forensic moisture readings ( XXXX % ), and the manufacturer 's warranty exclusion. I request that the CFPB audit the retaliatory XX/XX/XXXX re-categorization and hold American Express accountable for its willful failure to distinguish between a legitimate consumer debt and a merchants attempt to collect for the documented destruction of a primary residence. Sincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation