vivekkopthsd/cfpb-consumer-complaints huggingface dataset:
Consumer complaint received 2025-12-24 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Managing an account — Problem using a debit or ATM card
Company: JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
Re : Complaint Against JPMorgan Chase Bank , N.A . 
Product : Checking Account / Debit Card Issue : Fraud / Unauthorized Transactions Reference Number : XXXX Dear Sir or Madam : I submit this complaint to request review and intervention regarding JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.s denial of four unauthorized ATM withdrawals totaling {$1600.00} from my checking account. Chase denied these claims solely because a correct PIN was used, despite extensive evidence of criminal activity, incapacitation, lack of authorization, and my timely reporting. 

I. Background On XX/XX/year>, while traveling in XXXX, XXXX, I was drugged and robbed. My debit card, mobile phones, credit cards, and identification were stolen. I regained consciousness the following morning and did not have possession of my debit card or phone when the disputed ATM withdrawals occurred. 

XXXX. Reporting and Investigation Despite delays caused by the theft of my phones and compromise of my email account, I notified JPMorgan Chase Bank of the fraudulent activity by XX/XX/year>. I filed a criminal report by XX/XX/year>. Chase initially issued provisional credit. 
On or around XX/XX/year>, Chase reversed four ATM withdrawals while ruling other disputed transactions from the same incident in my favor. 

XXXX. Chases Denial Rationale On XX/XX/year>, I spoke with a Claims agent named XXXX and escalated to a Floor Supervisor named XXXX. XXXX XXXX stated that Chase policy treats correct PIN usage as dispositive and does not consider such transactions unauthorized. 
This rationale fails to account for coercion, incapacitation, or criminal extraction of PIN information, all of which negate actual authorization. 

IV. Transactions at Issue XX/XX/year> {$530.00} XX/XX/year> {$180.00} XX/XX/year> {$470.00} XX/XX/year> {$470.00} Total : {$1600.00} V. Regulation XXXX Concerns Under Regulation E, 12 C.F.R. 1005.2 ( m ), unauthorized electronic fund transfers are those made without actual authority. Regulation E does not equate correct PIN usage with authorization, particularly where the PIN is obtained through criminal means.

12 C.F.R. 1005.6 and 1005.11 require timely notice protections and a reasonable investigation. Chase relied on automated decisioning and a categorical PIN-based policy, rather than a good-faith investigation of the facts.

VI. Requested Resolution I request that the CFPB require JPMorgan Chase Bank to reverse its denial, reimburse {$1600.00}, and review its internal policies for compliance with Regulation E.

Company response to consumer: Closed with monetary relief
Consumer complaint received 2025-12-24 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem — Their investigation did not fix an error on your report
Company: TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
The info being reported regarding my account is inaccurate the dates, balance, and payment history are all different on all 3 credit bureaus.I 've tried disputing with them twice and both times I never received any information validating any balance since my account was may have been breached in a recent data breach.

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 2025-12-24 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Improper use of your report — Reporting company used your report improperly
Company: EQUIFAX, INC.
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
Account : XXXX XXXX XXXX Account # : XXXX Balance : {$1900.00} Date Opened : XX/XX/XXXX Date First Delinquency : XX/XX/XXXX Status : Closed / Collection Chronology conflict Delinquency predates account opening Violation : FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 5 ) Delete

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation
Consumer complaint received 2025-12-24 00:00:00
Product: Payday loan, title loan, personal loan, or advance loan — Personal line of credit
Issue: Problem with the payoff process at the end of the loan — 
Company: Aqua Finance, Inc.
State: AZ

Complaint narrative:
At loan inception, I explicitly instructed that any payments exceeding the required monthly amount be applied to principal. No representative disclosedverbally or in writingthat a separate or recurring request was required for principal-only application, raising concerns under Truth in Lending Act / Regulation Z ( 12 CFR 1026 ) and Wis. Stat. 421.302 ( required disclosures ).

When I later attempted to pay off the loan in full, the lender would not provide a payoff amount reflecting the correct principal owed. I was told I would receive a call after the holidays to explain the request ; I expressly declined and reiterated that I wanted the correct payoff amount provided immediately and the funds applied directly to principal. The issue was not resolved, and a related records request was ignored. 
My concern is that material terms regarding payment application and payoff calculation were not clearly disclosed, and my express instructions were not followed, raising additional concerns under CFPB UDAAP standards and Wis. Stat. 427.104 ( prohibited practices ).

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation
Consumer complaint received 2025-12-24 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Improper use of your report — Reporting company used your report improperly
Company: TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
Account : XXXX XXXX XXXX Account # : XXXX Balance : {$1900.00} Date Opened : XX/XX/year> Status : Collection Chronology conflict Implied delinquency predates account opening based on removal date Violation : FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 5 ) Delete

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 2025-12-24 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Improper use of your report — Credit inquiries on your report that you don't recognize
Company: EQUIFAX, INC.
State: NY

Complaint narrative:
I am submitting this complaint regarding inaccurate, inconsistent, and unverifiable information being reported on my credit file by TransUnion, Experian, and Equifax. 

I previously submitted formal written disputes to the credit reporting agencies identifying specific factual inaccuracies, missing required data, and cross-bureau inconsistencies affecting multiple tradelines. Despite these disputes, the CRAs have continued to report the information without correcting or deleting the inaccuracies, and without demonstrating that a reasonable reinvestigation was conducted as required by the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). These accounts are hindering my credit report and score and is totally frustrating AND GOES AGAINST THE CONSUMER LAWS

Company response to consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief
Consumer complaint received 2025-12-24 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Improper use of your report — Reporting company used your report improperly
Company: TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.
State: LA

Complaint narrative:
Experian and Equifax has failed to fulfill its legal obligation under the Fair Credit R Act ( FCRA ) to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation of disputed information credit report, leaving inaccurate or unverifiable accounts unresolved. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) has recently filed a lawsuit against Experian and Equifax, alleging systemic issues such as failing to forward consumer-provided evidence to furnishers, accepting unreliable responses, and failing to adequately notify consumers of dispute outcomes. These failures align with my experience, where Experian and Equifax has neither corrected nor removed disputed items despite the evidence I provided, causing ongoing harm to my credit standing. I am requesting immediate corrective action to remove or amend the disputed accounts, as Experian and Equifax inaction violates federal law and my rights as a consumer.

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
Consumer complaint received 2025-12-24 00:00:00
Product: Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service — Virtual currency
Issue: Fraud or scam — 
Company: BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
I was the victim of an Authorized Push Payment scam involving a fraudulent cryptocurrency trading platform. 

In XXXX and XX/XX/year>, I was contacted through XXXX and then XXXX by an individual who presented a fake investment opportunity. 
I was directed to use a fraudulent trading website that falsely showed profits and trading activity. 

Based on repeated misrepresentations and social engineering, I transferred approximately {$26000.00} from my Bank of America account to XXXX, a legitimate cryptocurrency exchange, and then onward to the fraudulent platform. 
I would not have authorized these transfers had I known the platform was fake. 

After the transfers, the fraudulent platform claimed I had profits and then demanded additional payments described as taxes before allowing any withdrawal. 
At that point, I realized this was a scam and ceased all further payments. 

I reported the fraud to Bank of America and filed a claim. 
Bank of America initially issued a provisional credit of {$22000.00}, but later denied the claim, stating that the transactions were authorized. 

Although the transfers were technically authorized, my consent was obtained through deception, misrepresentation, and social engineering. 
This was not a legitimate investment transaction, but a scam that removed my ability to give informed consent. 

I have also filed a scam report with XXXX and can provide supporting evidence, including screenshots of the fraudulent platform and messages demanding fake tax payments. 

I am requesting that Bank of America reconsider my claim and conduct a full review under fraud and social engineering guidelines.

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 2025-12-24 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: TX

Complaint narrative:
I requested proof of the amount owed for the balance of the vehicle after it was sold at auction, and the information that I received had been sent to an address that i have never been associated with. 

FORMAL DEMAND FOR DEFICIENCY BALANCE REMOVAL To Whom It May Concern : I am formally demanding the immediate removal of any alleged deficiency balance associated with the abovereferenced account. Your Notice of Our Plan to Sell Property, dated XX/XX/year>, was sent to an address that I have never lived at, used, or been associated with. At the time this notice was allegedly mailed, I was incarcerated, making it impossible for me to receive or respond to any communication sent to an unrelated address. Because you failed to send the required notice to my correct and lawful address, your disposition of the vehicle violated multiple provisions of UCC Article 9 and the Texas Business & Commerce Code, including : UCC 9611 Failure to provide reasonable notification UCC 9613 & 9614 Failure to provide proper consumergoods disposition notice UCC 9610 Commercially unreasonable disposition Texas Business & Commerce Code 9.611, 9.613, 9.614 Texas equivalents Texas Business & Commerce Code 9.626 Creditor loses right to deficiency if notice is improper Under 9.626, a creditor who fails to provide proper notice is barred from collecting any deficiency balance, regardless of the sale price or remaining contract amount. Because your notice was sent to an address that has no connection to me, and because I was incarcerated at the time, your notice was legally defective, not reasonably calculated to reach me, and therefore invalid under Article 9. Accordingly : I demand the immediate removal, discharge, and permanent cessation of any deficiency balance associated with this account. Additionally, I demand : Written confirmation that the deficiency has been removed and the account has been closed with a {$0.00} balance. Immediate correction of all credit reporting, including deletion of any negative marks related to repossession, deficiency, or collection activity. Cessation of all collection efforts, including calls, letters, and thirdparty collection attempts. If you continue to pursue a deficiency balance after receiving this notice, you may be in violation of : The Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) ( if a thirdparty collector is involved ) Texas Debt Collection Act UCC Article 9 PS. I have also uploaded proof of the address you sent the notice to.

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 2025-12-24 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Improper use of your report — Reporting company used your report improperly
Company: EQUIFAX, INC.
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
Account : XXXX XXXX XXXX Account # : XXXX Balance : {$1000.00} Date Opened : XX/XX/XXXX Date First Delinquency : XX/XX/XXXX Status : Closed / Collection Chronology conflict Delinquency predates account opening Violation : FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 5 ) Delete

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation
Consumer complaint received 2025-12-24 00:00:00
Product: Vehicle loan or lease — Lease
Issue: Managing the loan or lease — Billing problem
Company: Byrider Franchising, LLC
State: ID

Complaint narrative:
I purchased a XXXX  XXXX XXXX with {$1200.00} down. They stated I needed more but was able to do another {$1200.00} deferred down payments every 2 weeks. I completed that in XXXX. Both down payments still have not reflected on the total purchase which was {$14000.00} for the car. As if I never made any down payment or they just pocketed my down payment instead of applying it to my loan. Ive made over {$3000.00} in payments since I purchased this car with payments now being {$250.00} every two weeks not to include their basic insurance. And after multiple times of me telling them they dont report to the credit bureau correctly being that they are a credit builder program, they still have yet to. My credit shows I have made one payment of {$180.00} with a 1 % progress on this loan. This loan is still showing the total purchase price as if I have never made a payment. I have bank statements to show and prove Ive made a payment every two weeks since having this car. So where is my money going if its not being reflected on my loan? And where did the {$2800.00} down payment go since that was never reflected to lower what I owe on my loan? This company really lacks in reporting properly, accurately and does not apply payments correctly.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation
Consumer complaint received 2025-12-24 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Incorrect information on your report — Account status incorrect
Company: EQUIFAX, INC.
State: NY

Complaint narrative:
I have an account with XXXX XXXX, that was mistakingly closed a while back and after review, they reopened the account. 

All issues initially, which I had previous complaints filed for. 

Complaint with XXXX for not reporting XXXX Complaint with Equifax for lack of access XXXX For some reason, Equifax has not updated anything with discount since its accidental closure. XXXX has confirmed with me that they have since been sending the information regularly to all three bureaus and that this is an issue on Equifaxs end.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation
Consumer complaint received 2025-12-24 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Managing an account — Deposits and withdrawals
Company: SOFI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
State: WA

Complaint narrative:
I opened a SoFi Checking account on XX/XX/year>, and qualified for SoFi XXXX with recurring payroll deposits from my employer via XXXX. My first qualifying deposit of {$2500.00} was on XX/XX/year>, and the second of {$2500.00} was on XX/XX/year>. These same deposits meet XXXX written definition of Eligible Direct Deposit and should qualify me for the {$300.00} Direct Deposit welcome bonus, but the bonus has not been credited. 

I also received a {$15.00} reward from SoFi, which I redeemed as an investment on XX/XX/year>, but the funds never appeared in my account. 

I contacted SoFi via chat and emailed mobile support twice, requesting verification that my payroll deposits qualify for the {$300.00} bonus and that the {$15.00} investment reward be properly credited. SoFi responded that the deposits are being researched due to a coding issue and did not confirm eligibility or credit the bonus. They directed me to wait for future pay cycles to see if those would qualify and stated the deposits may not count retroactively. No resolution has been provided despite repeated inquiries.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation
Consumer complaint received 2025-12-24 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — I do not know
Issue: Took or threatened to take negative or legal action — Threatened to sue you for very old debt
Company: ACIMA CREDIT, LLC
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
My mother recently contacted me after receiving several high-pressure voicemails regarding a debt in my name. The caller claimed they were initiating a legal claim to be filed with the county and insisted they were only contacting her because they had no other location on file for me. They warned that if I didnt call back immediately to update my address, I would lose the opportunity to resolve the matter before the 'file was claimed. ' They provided a claim number and stated that the voicemail served as my 'notification by telephone. ' In a follow-up message, the caller stated this was a 'final notice ' and that they were proceeding with an 'order of location ' to my parents ' residence. They claimed they were restating this information specifically so I could not claim a lack of prior knowledge. 

Naturally, I was confused and concerned. I called the number provided, and the representative identified the company as XXXX. ' She insisted they were not a collection agency, but rather a firm handling a lawsuit against me. However, she could not confirm the identity of the person or entity suing me, eventually stating it was regarding Acimaa company with which I had a debt that was charged off five years ago. I explained that I had attempted to return the items in 2020, but Acima refused the return, and due to job loss during the pandemic, I was unable to maintain payments.

The representative then alleged I was being sued for 'breach of contract ' and 'intent to deceive a financial institution. ' When I asked for physical documentation, she claimed they couldn't send anything via mail unless they formally filed with the court. She suggested that I could avoid the filing fees and court costs, which she estimated at {$2400.00} by paying over {$1000.00} immediately. When I said I couldn't afford that, she offered a 'settlement ' of {$170.00} today followed by bi-weekly installments of {$160.00}. When I asked for time to think, she pressured me, saying the offer might be withdrawn and the claim would proceed. 

Upon researching XXXX ' and the phone number, I found no legitimate business information. However, I did find that Acima has recently been sued by the CFPB for using these exact deceptive and predatory collection tactics.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation
Consumer complaint received 2025-12-24 00:00:00
Product: Credit card — General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Trouble using your card — Can't use card to make purchases
Company: Avant Holding Company, Inc.
State: MN

Complaint narrative:
This issue is not isolated. I have experienced similar card authorization failures with Avant in the past, in which my account displayed available credit yet repeatedly declined at point-of-sale terminals, followed by customer support assurances that the card would function normally without disclosure of the actual cause. The recurrence of this conduct suggests a pattern rather than a one-time error. 

Despite my repeated requests for clarification and escalation, Avant representatives consistently provided scripted recitations of declined transactions already known to me, rather than substantive information regarding the cause of the authorization failures or whether my account was subject to any authorization-level restrictions, enhanced monitoring, or internal risk controls. Representatives repeatedly stated the card should work, which proved inaccurate, while failing to disclose material information necessary for me to understand or access my available credit. 

To the extent Avant possesses internal information affecting card usability, including authorization-layer controls, risk flags, or monitoring that restricts transactions despite available credit being displayed, the failure to disclose such information raises potential concerns under the Consumer Financial Protection Act, 12 U.S.C. 5536, which prohibits unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices, including omissions of material information while making representations that an account should function normally. 

Additionally, where internal data or account-level determinations affect a consumers access to credit, the failure to ensure accuracy, transparency, and meaningful disclosure may implicate obligations under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681, including the requirement that information affecting a consumers credit access be handled accurately and disclosed appropriately upon inquiry. 

By repeatedly reciting transaction history without disclosing the true cause of the authorization failures or escalating to a team capable of resolving or explaining the issue, Avant deprived me of meaningful information necessary to understand and use my credit account. This omission materially affected my ability to access credit that was represented as available and in good standing.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation
Consumer complaint received 2025-12-24 00:00:00
Product: Payday loan, title loan, personal loan, or advance loan — Installment loan
Issue: Getting the loan — 
Company: Tower Loan of Mississippi, Inc.
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
I was provided a check that was returned, which impacted my paycheck and mortgage from my bank. The funds were placed on the account and then taken again. This has caused a negative experience especially around the holidays. The funds were completely removed from my account on XXXX XXXX, leaving me with a negative {$500.00} in my account.

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