Consumer complaint received 2025-11-10 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: Credit Karma, LLC
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
Credit Karma ( XXXX XXXX XXXX Credit Karma platform ) misidentified an automated employer screening job bot authorization as a denied, in-person card-present transaction at a physical reader for {$12.00}, then surfaced that characterization in its system in a way that has directly impaired my ability to secure employment and income opportunities. The transaction was not a point-of-sale swipe/tap/insert at any physical terminal ; it was an automated verification event associated with a hiring workflow. Treating this as a consumer-initiated, card-present denial is inaccurate and misleading, and it has had material adverse effects on my employment prospects and livelihood hour after hour as the error persists without meaningful review.

I notified Credit Karma through its dispute channels that the {$12.00} item was mischaracterized, not a consumer retail attempt, and that its labeling and status were harming my employment screening outcomes, yet Credit Karma has not corrected the record or provided evidence-based substantiation for the current reporting. The platform advertises a Direct Dispute workflow with TransUnion and guidance for handling errors, but the response I received did not address the substance ( bot-driven auth, no physical terminal, employment context ) and did not remediate the inaccurate characterization. This failure to reasonably investigate and correct inaccurate data violates basic credit-report dispute expectations and exacerbates ongoing damages tied to job eligibility and automated employment systems.

The inaccurate presentation suggests a consumer-initiated transaction at a physical reader was declined, which is not true. This creates the false impression of attempted misuse, insufficient funds behavior, or fraud flags connected to my identityan impression that can propagate through third-party screeners or internal risk models used by employers or gig platforms. The result is lost earning opportunities and reputational harm. The systems refusal to align the data with the actual event type ( an automated verification ping associated with hiring ) is unreasonable and misleading. 



I followed the standard steps : reviewed the item in XXXX XXXX, attempted to use their guided dispute pathway tied to TransUnion, and supplied clarifications showing the event was not a consumer retail interaction. XXXX XXXX public materials state consumers can dispute errors, and that erroneous information can be removed via Direct Dispute, but the company has not corrected the misclassification nor provided any documentation validating the denied at a physical reader narrative. I need a proper reinvestigation with attention to the event type, channel ( card-not-present vs. present ), and purpose ( employment verification ), along with removal or accurate reclassification of the erroneous entry. 



This continuing inaccuracy is time-sensitive because hiring systems often re-check or cache risk and identity signals ; the longer the mislabeling persists, the more opportunities are lost. The amount is {$12.00}, but the harm is not the amountits the misleading context of a supposed in-person denial and the failure to heed my dispute explaining the employment verification nature of the event. I am requesting the Bureaus assistance to prompt Credit Karma ( and any furnishing/reporting partners involved ) to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation, correct or delete the inaccurate characterization, and provide me with written confirmation of the changes

Company response to consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief