Consumer complaint received 2024-06-04 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Other banking product or service
Issue: Opening an account — Confusing or missing disclosures
Company: FISERV FINXACT CORE
State: SC

Complaint narrative:
Fiserv Inc. aquired First Data, and XXXX XXXX. Firserv is in collusion with XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX was the former COO of XXXX hired by XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX is the CEO of XXXX. XXXX became the CEO of First Data. While XXXX was CEO of First Data the former owner was opening fraudulent merchant accounts using customer data to embezzel. The FTC found the former owner guilty of fraud and First Data was ordered to pay XXXX XXXX in damages. Fiserv then aquired First Data and XXXX became the CEO of Fiserv. Fiserv signed into agreement naming XXXX the administrative agent and financial institute for Fiserv after XXXX became CEO. Fiserv then aquired XXXX XXXX. 

We were a customer of First Data through XXXX XXXX now aquired by Fiserv. XXXX XXXX and First Data collected our data to open merchant account for our business on XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX Fiserv aquired First Data and XXXX became the CEO of Fiserv. By this point First Data was ordered by the FTC and Fiserv aquired the liability. Fiserv employees are in collusion with XXXX. XXXX employees aquired our data in collusion with XXXX XXXXFirst Data/Fiserv employees . On XX/XX/XXXX XXXX employees opened the fraudulent bank account at XXXX and fraudulent merchant account at XXXX using our data collected on XX/XX/XXXX to embezzel. XXXX caught XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX XXXX contacted XXXX and XXXX XXXX, confirmed our data was thefted and used in the fraudulent accounts. Both XXXX and XXXX XXXX were unaware XXXX was going to place the XXXX for XXXX XXXX idenity theft on XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX allowed the fraudulent bank account to remain open and attempted to open additional fraudulent merchant accounts but were blocked by the Match they caused on XX/XX/XXXX, after several failed attempts XXXX closed the fraudulent bank account on XX/XX/XXXX. 

To cover it up XXXX  XXXX claimed in a XXXX report to the XXXX  XXXX that they became aware on XX/XX/XXXX of identity theft and a so called data breach that occured within XXXX  XXXX. In the XXXX report XXXX XXXX also claimed after XX/XX/XXXX there was an ongoing investigation to locate and notifify the victims. We were never notified in accordance to XXXX XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX or beyond. On XX/XX/XXXX we needed a second merchant account and XXXX for our new business and were declined due to the Match. We didn't know what a Match was and thought it was a mistake. We contacted XXXX XXXX because we knew our other business merchant account was with them. XXXX  XXXX at first said there was not a Match and they could give us a merchant account and gateway for our second business. Keep in mind, later found this was during the ongoing investigation at XXXX XXXX as listed in their XXXX report to notify the victims of identity theft. XXXX XXXX declined the second account due to the XXXX for XXXX XXXX identity theft. XXXX XXXX then admitted and blamed First Data. XXXX XXXX was already aware on XX/XX/XXXX as claimed in their XXXX report. 

We contacted First Data which blamed First USA. Later found First USA was aquired by XXXX and First Data was aquired by Fiserv. We were talking to Fiserv at this time after XXXX XXXX admitted blamed First Data aquired by Fiserv. By XX/XX/XXXX we were in contact with XXXX which placed the XXXX and disclosed XXXX and XXXX XXXX. We also knew XXXX XXXX/First Data was the only company that collected our unique data on XX/XX/XXXX. At this point we were dealing with XXXX. XXXX XXXX then went on to claim all victims were notified by XX/XX/XXXX and published their XXXX report on XX/XX/XXXX. We were never notified by anyone, later found from the XXXX  XXXX no records exist for the Merchant XXXX XXXX report. The XXXX report was a cover up. XXXX XXXX admitted it was XXXX XXXX which was already aquired by Fiserv. 

Waiting on the so called investigation at XXXX we discovered the XXXX XXXX XXXX report from a different source on XX/XX/XXXX. We confronted XXXX XXXX with their own XXXX report and they had no position or defense. On XX/XX/XXXX we sent a Disclosure Notice to XXXX XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX confirmed the Disclosure Notice was sent to the owners. No one responded to the Notice or comply with FCRA. Later found, on XX/XX/XXXX Fiserv signed the agreement with XXXX. Later found Fiserv aquired XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. Fiserv was in collusion with XXXX the entire time. Fiserv aquired XXXX XXXX and First Data. Fiserv received the Disclosure Notice XX/XX/XXXX and failed to comply with FCRA. 

Waiting on the ongoing investigation at XXXX we sent them a Disclosure Notice on XX/XX/XXXX because they refused to disclose their investigation results. Seeking the response to the XXXX  XXXX Disclosure Notice we sent emails to First Data and several employees at XXXX  XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. An employee at XXXX XXXX called us back and stated there was no response to the Notice because XXXX XXXX was sold. On XX/XX/XXXX Fiserv confirmed they aquired XXXX XXXX. All obstruction. 

Fiserv had no defense either and refused to disclose. Fiserv changed their position several times while in violation of State and Federal law. Each position was disproven with written evidence. The in-house Fiserv attorney was directing employees to violate the law. We reported to the CFPB on XX/XX/XXXX due to these violations. We were then sent to the in-house Fiserv attorney which changed his position several times to obstruct. We sent the attorney and Fiserv a second Disclosure Notice and he refused to comply with FCRA. All changing Fiserv postions and defense were disproven with written factual evidence with the attorney. The attorney failed to disclose one single written document of evidence to support any of his changing positions. The Fiserv attorney requested phone meetings to avoid written disclosure. The Fiserv attorney responded to the CFPB Case XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX with perjury, obstruction and fraud by omission. When the attorney was confronted with the response to the CFPB he admitted to his own ethics violations. The attorney and Fiserv were already in violation of FCRA, State, and Federal law prior to the response to the CFPB. We requested the attorney to disclose is bar number and location and he refused. The Fiserv attorney then went silent. The in-house Fiserv attorney was dismissed due to his intentions, obstruction, failure of duty, FCRA violations XXXX ethics violations, State, and Federal violations. The attorney went silent and we sent a Disclosure Notice to the employee that sent us to the in-house attorney and the former First Data employee now a Fiserv employee that blamed XXXX  XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX after XXXX  XXXX admitted it was First Data on XX/XX/XXXX during an ongoing investigation at XXXX  XXXX to notify the victims as claimed in the XXXX  XXXX CPB report to the XXXX  XXXX XXXX These employees were directed by the in-house attorney not to respond to the Notices putting them in violation as well. Clearly many law violations. 

In conclusion. XXXX employees are in collusion with Fiserv employees thefting data, opening fraudulent accounts to embezzel. First Data was found guilty and ordered by the FTC for opening fraudulent merchant accounts. XXXX former COO of XXXX, former CEO of First Data while owner opening fraudulent accounts, current CEO of Fiserv after aquisions in collision with XXXX XXXX of XXXX opening fraudulent bank accounts to faciltate fraudulent merchant accounts. Fiserv aquired First Data and XXXX XXXX in agreement with XXXX. Fiserv and XXXX caused the XXXX for XXXX XXXX identity theft for 5 years and has destroyed my businesses, data, credit, websites, products, and patents. The pattern and intent is clear. The written admittance and factual written evidence is clear. The time line is obvious. The perjury, obstruction, and fraud to the CFPB and XXXX  XXXX is clear. The violations are clear. State and Federal law violations are clear. Securities fraud is clear putting investors at risk as well. While XXXX and Fiserv just had another so called data breach so they can theft customer data and use it as they choose? 

We contacted the CFPB after the prior Fiserv response and CFPB said they report to the FTC. We have received no response from the FTC. We reported XXXX forms to FBI. We reported to the IRS. We updated the local police report. Local police placed a search warrant on XXXX and we requested a search warrant for Fiserv. The XXXX XXXX is waiting on the warrants. There is also a letter written to XXXX XXXX from 13 states about this behavior. Over 200 victims reporting to the XXXX  XXXX and new ones reporting daily. We request enforcement of State and Federal law. We request relief from Fiserv and XXXX. Fiserv and XXXX are liable. We request the FTC enforce the prior order placed on First Data aquired by Fiserv. We remain destroyed on the Match until XX/XX/XXXX caused by XXXX and Fiserv. After 5 or more Disclosure Notices with FCRA violations and perjury to the CFPB, second reports should not be needed.

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