Consumer complaint received 2026-05-07 00:00:00
Product: Credit card — Store credit card
Issue: Other features, terms, or problems — Other problem
Company: TD BANK US HOLDING COMPANY
State: LA

Complaint narrative:
I am submitting this response because the company Target 's latest communication does not resolve my complaint and instead raises additional concerns regarding the accuracy, transparency, and validity of the account they are reporting. This matter has involved multiple requests and complaints regarding my attempt to obtain the governing contract and application associated with the Target/TD Bank credit card account that is being furnished on my credit reports with the major CRAs. As previously documented, the company repeatedly required me to submit a notarized request in order to obtain my contract. I complied fully with their instructions, including sending a written request with identification, submitting a notarized request, confirming delivery of that request. Despite confirmed delivery, the company claimed non-receipt and continued to instruct me to resend the same documentation, creating a prolonged and unnecessary delay. After several months, the company issued a response dated XX/XX/year>, stating that it had provided the requested information. However, the documents provided do not satisfy my request. Instead of providing the governing contract bearing my signature or application tied to my specific account as I requested, the company provided what appears to be a generic, template credit card agreement containing standard terms and disclosures. The company did not provide the original signed application, any agreement specific to my account, any document demonstrating my assent to the terms, any account-level documentation linking the provided agreement to my account. A generic agreement is not equivalent to the governing contract associated with a specific consumer account. Target " appeared '' to be compliant by sending " something '', but it was not what I had been requesting for the past several months. The companys failure to provide the actual governing contract has materially interfered with my ability to understand and exercise my rights. Which is required under the Truth In Lending Act ( TILA ). I am unable to determine the terms that governed my account at the time of origination, I am unable to identify any dispute resolution provisions, including arbitration clauses, if they exist, and I am unable to assess my contractual rights and obligations. This lack of transparency undermines my ability to make informed decisions regarding my account and dispute process. This situation raises a serious and logical concern. If the company can not or will not provide the governing contract tied to this account, it calls into question how the account was verified in response to disputes I sent them just before my request for the governing contract between Target and I. The purpose of my request for the contract was directly related to prior disputes that were not meaningfully corrected. Without access to the governing agreement, I can not verify the accuracy of the reported terms, determine whether the account is being reported in compliance with the original agreement, or assess whether the company conducted a reasonable and thorough investigation. Providing a generic agreement does not address these concerns. The companys conduct reflects a consistent pattern of requiring procedural steps that are not legally required, failing to acknowledge confirmed delivery of requested documentation, repeating the same instructions without resolution, and ultimately providing a non-responsive, generic document in place of the requested contract. This behavior creates the appearance of compliance while avoiding the substance of the request.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation