Consumer complaint received 2025-05-02 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Credit card debt
Issue: False statements or representation — Attempted to collect wrong amount
Company: CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION
State: AR

Complaint narrative:
On XX/XX/scrub>XXXX XXXX XXXX I paid {$180.00} through XXXX XXXX XXXX online portal ( XXXX  ) to settle a {$470.00} debt, pursuant to their settlement offer letter dated XX/XX/scrub> XXXX XXXX which explicitly promised the account would be resolved and closed upon payment of {$180.00} by XX/XX/year>. However, XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX engaged in a systematic pattern of deceptive, unfair, and abusive practices designed to obstruct my ability to document this payment, deceive me into paying more than the agreed-upon settlement amount, and cause severe emotional distress. Their actions reveal an intentional architecture of their website and company practices to exploit consumers, violating multiple federal and state laws and warranting significant restitution and a refund of my payment. 

Intentional Obstruction of Payment Documentation : After making the payment, the Print Receipt button on their confirmation page was non-functional. Technical analysis using browser developer tools revealed that their Content Security Policy ( CSP ) deliberately blocks the buttons onclick= '' window.print ( ) '' event handler by disallowing unsafe-inline in the script-src directive. This calculated design choicewhen they could have used an Angular event binding or adjusted the CSPprevented me from obtaining a receipt, leaving me vulnerable to false claims of non-payment and causing significant anxiety. 
Refusal to Provide Immediate Confirmation and Stalling Tactics : When I contacted XXXX XXXX XXXX at XXXX to request confirmation of my payment, they refused to provide it immediately, claiming it would be sent in a letter in XXXX business days ( around XXXX XXXX XXXX  ). This delay is unconscionable for an electronic payment. During my calls, they employed stalling tactics by keeping me on hold for a manager for an extended period, further delaying resolution. After persistent demands, they provided a confirmation number, but only after subjecting me to undue frustration. 
Forced Logouts and Deceptive Portal Design to Induce Overpayment : On multiple occasions, collection agents logged me out of the portal mid-session, forcing me to log back in repeatedly. The portal initially displayed the full {$470.00} balance as due, despite the {$180.00} settlement offer, only showing the reduced amount after navigating to the Reduced Balance Offers section. These forced logouts and the portals deceptive design appear to be deliberate tactics to deceive consumers into paying more than the agreed settlement amount, as the default display of the higher balance could mislead someone into overpaying. This reflects an intentional architecture of their website and company practices to exploit consumers, further compounding my stress and distrust. 
Risk of Identity Theft and Misuse of Information : The forced logouts, combined with their lack of transparency in handling my payment and personal data, raised a reasonable fear of potential identity theft and misuse of my information. Each logout required me to re-enter sensitive login credentials, increasing the risk of interception or unauthorized access. Their deceptive practices and failure to provide immediate confirmation further eroded my trust in their ability to safeguard my financial and personal information, adding to my distress. 
Statutory Violations : FDCPA 15 U.S.C. 1692e ( False or Misleading Representations ) : The non-functional Print Receipt button, refusal to provide immediate confirmation, and portal design that defaults to the full balance while forcing logouts are deceptive, misleading me into believing I could easily document my payment and pay the agreed settlement amount, violating Section 1692e.

FDCPA 15 U.S.C. 1692f ( Unfair Practices ) : The deliberate CSP configuration, 710 business day delay, stalling tactics, forced logouts, and portal design encouraging overpayment are unfair, exposing me to risk of false claims and unauthorized payments, violating Section 1692f. 
FDCPA 15 U.S.C. 1692f ( 1 ) : Attempting to collect an amount not authorized by the settlement agreement ( {$180.00} ) by designing the portal to display the full {$470.00} balance and forcing logouts to encourage overpayment violates Section 1692f ( 1 ).

FDCPA 15 U.S.C. 1692d ( Harassment or Abuse ) : The forced logouts, stalling tactics, refusal to provide immediate confirmation, and deceptive portal design constitute harassment under Section 1692d, as their conduct was intended to pressure and intimidate me into overpaying. 
Regulation E 12 CFR 1005.9 : As an electronic payment, I am entitled to prompt documentation. Their non-functional button and delayed confirmation violate this regulation.

EFTA 15 U.S.C. 1693e : The portal design and forced logouts, which push users to the full balance screen, attempt to induce an unauthorized payment beyond the {$180.00} I authorized, violating Section 1693e.

CFAA 18 U.S.C. 1030 ( a ) ( 5 ) : The forced logouts constitute intentional interference with my authorized access to the portal, impairing its functionality and causing damage to my user experience.

CFAA 18 U.S.C. 1030 ( a ) ( 4 ) : The deceptive portal design, combined with forced logouts, constitutes fraud by deception with intent to obtain a higher payment, violating Section 1030 ( a ) ( 4 ).

Dodd-Frank UDAAP 12 U.S.C. 5531 : The portal design, forced logouts, and delayed confirmation are deceptive, unfair, and abusive, taking advantage of my vulnerability as a debtor to pressure overpayment, violating UDAAP standards.

FTCA Section 5 15 U.S.C. 45 : The portal design, forced logouts, and non-functional button are unfair and deceptive acts in commerce, violating Section 5.

Minnesota Consumer Protection Laws Minn. Stat. 325F.69 : Operating in Minnesota , their deceptive digital practices ( CSP configuration, forced logouts, portal design ) violate state laws against unfair practices in commerce.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation