vivekkopthsd/cfpb-consumer-complaints huggingface dataset:
Consumer complaint received 2026-04-07 00:00:00
Product: Credit card — General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Advertising and marketing, including promotional offers — Confusing or misleading advertising about the credit card
Company: AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY
State: MA

Complaint narrative:
From XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/2025, I stayed aXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, Nevada. I paid for the stay using my American Express card, with a total charge of {$420.00}. At the time, American Express was offering a promotion that provided an {$80.00} statement credit for spending over {$400.00}. I qualified for this promotion and initially received the {$80.00} credit. However, approximately XXXX months later, the credit was reversed. When I contacted American Express, I was told the charge had been split into XXXX transactions under different merchant identities, which allegedly made it ineligible for the promotion. However, my receipt clearly shows that the charge was made to a single business : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX As a customer, I have no control over how a merchant processes transactions internally. The purchase was for a single stay at XXXX property, and I met the stated spending requirement. Reversing the credit based on backend processing details that were neither disclosed nor visible to me is unreasonable. I believe this promotion was presented in a misleading manner and that the denial of the credit is unjustified. From XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/2025, I stayed aXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Nevada. I paid for the stay using my American Express card, with a total charge of {$420.00}. At the time, American Express was offering a promotion that provided an {$80.00} statement credit for spending over {$400.00}. I qualified for this promotion and initially received the {$80.00} credit. However, approximately XXXX months later, the credit was reversed. When I contacted American Express, I was told the charge had been split into XXXX transactions under different merchant identities, which allegedly made it ineligible for the promotion. However, my receipt clearly shows that the charge was made to a single businesXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX As a customer, I have no control over how a merchant processes transactions internally. The purchase was for a single stay at XXXX property, and I met the stated spending requirement. Reversing the credit based on backend processing details that were neither disclosed nor visible to me is unreasonable. I believe this promotion was presented in a misleading manner and that the denial of the credit is unjustified. I respectfully request that the {$80.00} statement credit be reinstated.

Company response to consumer: Closed with monetary relief
Consumer complaint received 2026-04-07 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — I do not know
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt was result of identity theft
Company: Security Credit Services, LLC
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
I am filing a complaint against several debt collection agencies for what appears to be ongoing violations of federal consumer protection laws. After formally disputing the alleged debts and requesting proper validation, the companies did not provide sufficient proof that I am legally responsible for these accounts. They failed to produce key documents such as original agreements, ownership records, account histories, or evidence of their authority to collect. Despite this, collection efforts and credit reporting activity may have continued without proper verification. This raises concerns about potential violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, including failure to validate debts and use of misleading or unfair practices, as well as the Fair Credit Reporting Act, particularly regarding the accuracy and investigation of reported information. Overall, the behavior described suggests these companies may be attempting to collect unverified debts and reporting potentially inaccurate information, which could indicate broader noncompliance with federal regulations.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation
Consumer complaint received 2026-04-07 00:00:00
Product: Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service — Domestic (US) money transfer
Issue: Fraud or scam — 
Company: BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
I am filing a complaint against Bank of America regarding their denial of a fraud claim involving a {$7000.00} loss due to an impersonation scam. I was contacted by an individual on XX/XX/2026 who spoofed a legitimate Bank of America phone number and claimed to be from their fraud department. I was told there were unauthorized transactions on my account and was instructed to follow steps to secure my funds. Under these false pretenses, I was guided to : - Transfer funds to my XXXX XXXX XXXX Link what I believed was my own bank account, but was actually a fraudulent external account - Transfer {$7000.00} to that account as part of the verification process I reasonably believed I was following instructions from Bank of America to protect my account. I did not intend to send money to a third party. I had opened a fraud claim with Bank of America on XX/XX/2026 but on XX/XX/2026, they denied my claim stating that the transaction was authorized. However, this authorization was obtained through deception and impersonation, which is a known form of fraud. I have since : - Reported the incident to Bank of America immediately - Filed a report with the Federal Trade Commission - Taken steps to secure my accounts This situation reflects a failure to adequately protect consumers from known impersonation scams.

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 2026-04-07 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — I do not know
Issue: Took or threatened to take negative or legal action — Threatened or suggested your credit would be damaged
Company: CREDIT ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION
State: TN

Complaint narrative:
Help my rights are being violated, 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ) of the FDCPA requires debt collectors to cease collection activities and provide proper validation of the debt when requested in writing within 30 days of initial contact. The accounts Ive referenced are not 100 % accurate. Until you provide competent evidence that validates the debt including a signed agreement, full account history, and verification of your authority to collect you must cease all collection efforts and remove the information from my credit report. I am stressed out because this company is violating my rights Under 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ), data furnishers are required to report only accurate and complete information. Reporting unverifiable or inaccurate data is a violation of federal law.

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 2026-04-07 00:00:00
Product: Credit card — General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Problem with a purchase shown on your statement — Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement
Company: AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
Continued complaint XXXX. They continue to tell with their stories and legends I asked to close the account. They answer very differently from what I asked. Sorry to say but they simply do not protect their customers. I just really want to close the card. I do not believe that sending them documents will solve the problem. I want to close my XXXX card as you asked. XXXX XXXX

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation
Consumer complaint received 2026-04-07 00:00:00
Product: Vehicle loan or lease — Loan
Issue: Getting a loan or lease — Loan opened without my consent or knowledge
Company: Westlake Services, LLC
State: IL

Complaint narrative:
On these dates XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX I see inquiries from Westlake that I didnt authorize them to do. I contacted them on XX/XX/XXXX but it was all automated system. I need these inquiries removed because I didnt authorize them nor do they have any proof or provided any proof.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation
Consumer complaint received 2026-04-07 00:00:00
Product: Credit card — General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Problem with a purchase shown on your statement — Card was charged for something you did not purchase with the card
Company: WELLS FARGO & COMPANY
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
On XX/XX/year> a super check ( essentially a cash advance ) was forged to make a purchase or withdraw {$3000.00} from my Wells Fargo Credit Card. I reported the transaction as a fraud over the phone, and had a new card issued. The charges were reversed when I reported the fraud, but the charges have been added back to my account. I spoke with someone in the fraud dept, and they told me that the signature on the check matches the signature that they have on file. I believe that a matching signature doesn't prove that I authorized those purchases. I asked for a copy of the super check and I was told that I can not open up another fraud case while they're sending me a copy of the check. I was told that it can take up to 30 days to get a copy of the check. Only then can I appeal their decision, but I'll have to start making payments on these fraudulent charges soon. I later spoke to someone in the " escalation dept '' about my situation, and they seemed to be more helpful, and I'm waiting 2-10 days to hear from the Executive office about my issue.

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 monetary relief
Consumer complaint received 2026-04-07 00:00:00
Product: Credit card — General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Getting a credit card — Problem getting a working replacement card
Company: FIRST PORTFOLIO SERVICING INC
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
I was approved for a Total Visa credit card and paid the required {$95.00} program fee on XX/XX/year>. According to the companys terms, the card should have been shipped within a few business days. After not receiving the card, I contacted customer service and was informed that the card had allegedly been shipped on XX/XX/year>. However, I never received the card. During my call with customer service, I explained that I have since moved and requested that the card be reissued to my current address, especially since the representative indicated that a replacement would not be sent until XX/XX/year>. My request to update the mailing address for the replacement card was denied. I also requested a refund of the {$95.00} program fee, given that I have not received the card or been able to access the account. This request was also denied. As a consumer, I have paid a required fee for a financial product that I have not received. The company has failed to provide the card in a timely manner and is refusing both to send it to my correct address and to refund my payment. Desired Resolution : I am requesting either : A full refund of the {$95.00} program fee, OR Immediate cancellation of the original card and reissuance of a new card to my current, verified address Additionally, I request written confirmation that the original card has been canceled for security purposes.

Company public response: Company believes the complaint provided an opportunity to answer consumer's questions
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation
Consumer complaint received 2026-04-07 00:00:00
Product: Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service — Mobile or digital wallet
Issue: Confusing or missing disclosures — 
Company: Paypal Holdings, Inc
State: OR

Complaint narrative:
I am filing a complaint against PayPal for deceptive billing practices and unauthorized use of a funding source never set as a preferred method of payment. Recently, I added a new credit card to my PayPal wallet and explicitly set it as my " Preferred Payment Method. '' A reasonable consumer expects a global " Preferred '' or " Default '' setting to apply to their account 's payment routing. However, PayPal intentionally designs its interface to obscure the fact that this setting does not apply to active billing agreements or subscriptions. Furthermore, PayPal fails to notify users when an active billing agreement loses its funding source. Instead of declining the transaction or sending a notification to update my payment method, PayPals system executed an unauthorized fallback selection. It bypassed my newly assigned Preferred Payment Method and randomly assigned a linked payment method to force the transaction through. The system selected a dormant checking account that had zero assigned payment preferences, was not linked to these specific merchant agreements, and had not been utilized in years. This resulted in an unauthorized charge to a dormant bank account, triggering an immediate overdraft. While I was able to scramble and deposit funds by a strict XXXX XXXX XXXX deadline to prevent the bank from assessing a {$36.00} overdraft fee, the core issue is PayPal 's negligent/predatory system architecture. PayPals billing logic actively overrides explicit user intent ( the Preferred Payment Method ) and bypasses user consent ( failing to ask for authorization when a primary method fails ) in order to guarantee merchant transaction clearance at the direct expense of the consumer 's financial security. The customer support representatives confirmed via chat that the system intentionally infers hierarchy and utilizes unassigned accounts without prompt or warning.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation
Consumer complaint received 2026-04-07 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Credit card debt
Issue: False statements or representation — Attempted to collect wrong amount
Company: Revolut Technologies Inc.
State: NY

Complaint narrative:
I am disputing a tradeline reported by Revolut Technologies Inc. reflecting a charged-off account with a reported balance of {$21000.00}. I formally disputed this account and requested validation, including documentation substantiating the existence of the obligation, a breakdown of the reported balance, the companys authority to furnish and collect, and the required written notice of the alleged debt. No competent documentation has been provided. Despite this, Revolut continues to report the account as charged-off with a substantial past-due balance. The reported amount exceeds the original balance, and no accounting or records have been provided to support the increase. This conduct violates the Fair Credit Reporting Act, including the duty to conduct a reasonable investigation and not report information that can not be verified ( 15 U.S.C. 1681i, 1681e ( b ), 1681s-2 ( b ) ). It also constitutes misleading and unfair collection activity under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, including 15 U.S.C. 1692e, 1692f, and 1692g. Further, this conduct violates XXXX XXXX law, including XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX ( failure to reinvestigate and reporting inaccurate information ), as well as XXXX ( deceptive business practices ). Additionally, this reporting has continued despite notice of dispute and a court-issued XXXX XXXX XXXX requiring suppression, demonstrating willful noncompliance. The continued reporting of unverified and disputed information, without competent evidence or lawful authority, implicates fundamental due process principles under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, as recognized in XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, requiring fair procedures before deprivation of property interests such as creditworthiness. As a result, Revolut is using credit reporting as a mechanism of collection while failing to verify the debt or establish lawful authority. This has caused financial harm, including denial of credit and impairment of my credit profile. I request immediate deletion of this tradeline, or alternatively, production of competent documentation substantiating the balance, status, and authority to report. Respectfully, XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation
Consumer complaint received 2026-04-07 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Other debt
Issue: Took or threatened to take negative or legal action — Sued you without properly notifying you of lawsuit
Company: SOFI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. obtained a Writ of Garnishment on behalf of SoFi Bank ( XXXX XXXX case XXXX ) and froze my XXXX XXXX bank account on XX/XX/XXXX without providing any of the mandatory statutory notices required under Florida XXXX XXXX. I am a Texas resident at XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, TX XXXX. XXXX mailed the required documents to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, FL XXXX, an address where I have not lived since XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, I sent XXXX XXXX emails stating I had no notice and had relocated. Their attorney negotiated settlement terms but never mentioned my right to claim exemptions. The next day they filed a Certificate of Service claiming they mailed to the XXXX XXXX address. XXXX XXXX 's Answer confirmed my Texas address was on file. XXXX is pursuing {$56000.00} when the court-filed settlement stipulation is {$33000.00} with {$27000.00} remaining. No motion to vacate the stipulation was filed. XXXXXXXX XXXX Objection to my Claim of Exemption names the wrong plaintiff XXXX XXXX instead of SoFi Bank. As a direct result of the account freeze, my federal student loan payments have defaulted. I made XXXX settlement offers. All were rejected.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation
Consumer complaint received 2026-04-07 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Closing an account — Funds not received from closed account
Company: HUNTINGTON NATIONAL BANK, THE
State: OH

Complaint narrative:
Huntington Bank cashed my IRS refund check for {$6800.00}, which was released into my account after the standard 57 day hold on XX/XX/year>. Immediately after the funds were released, my account was closed. I provided proof, including the IRS trace showing the check was cashed and my tax records confirming the refund. Huntington claims the IRS must retrieve the funds, but the IRS confirmed this is no longer their matter the bank is now holding the funds. I have repeatedly requested that Huntington release the money or provide a valid FED return trace number, but they have refused. The bank is improperly retaining federal funds that belong to me, and I am requesting immediate resolution.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation
Consumer complaint received 2026-04-07 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Rental debt
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt is not yours
Company: RentDebt Automated Collections, LLC
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
I am disputing a collection account reported by RENTDEBT AUTOMATED COLLECTION related to an alleged rental obligation. I formally requested full validation of this debt, including an itemized statement, supporting documentation, and proof of legal obligation. This request was sent via certified mail ; however, the letter was returned as undeliverable, indicating that the company is not maintaining a valid or responsive mailing address. Despite this, the company continues to report the account to consumer reporting agencies. No validation or supporting documentation has ever been provided. Additionally, I never received any proper written notice regarding this alleged obligation following the end of the tenancy, as required under applicable Florida law. Reporting an unverified and unsupported debt, while failing to maintain a valid address for consumer communication, constitutes inaccurate and incomplete reporting under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and a failure to comply with debt validation requirements under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ).

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation
Consumer complaint received 2026-04-07 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Trouble during payment process — Private mortgage insurance (PMI)
Company: TRUIST FINANCIAL CORPORATION
State: NC

Complaint narrative:
I requested PMI cancellation because my XXXX ratio exceeded 80 %. The result I got back from Truist states inaccurate infomation- that my AVM is {>= $1,000,000} which is almost {$40000.00} less than a city-conducted appraisal of my home that happened less than one month ago and came back at {$400000.00}. Truist states that my current value on my home is less than the purchased amount which is why they won't cancel PMI. My home has been both independently appraised by the XXXX of XXXX last month at {$400000.00} and in XX/XX/year> by my appraiser for {$400000.00}. I have no idea where the {$330000.00} and I will not pay {$190.00} for another appraisal by Truist. Not to mention in the information provided, they show a loan length of 5 years. I have only had the loan with Truist for less than XXXX year, and before that only a year. I believe the info provided is riddled with errors, and they need to reconsider the information I am providing without me incurring a {$190.00} fee.

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 2026-04-07 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Credit card debt
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt is not yours
Company: Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
To Whom It May Concern : This complaint serves as a formal dispute of the alleged debt referenced above and demand for creditor to Cease and Desist. On or about XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX Bank sold Portfolio Recovery Associates , LLC, a charged-off account ( the Account ) with a Bill of Sale to Portfolio Recovery Associates , LLC , a Virginia corporation XXXX The Account is reported as charged off on or about XX/XX/XXXX. The Bill of Sale is described as : XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX Fresh XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX Portfolio Recovery Associates , LLC, failed to provide valid documentation or contract entered upon between myself and Portfolio Recovery Associates , LLC. Therefore, indebtedness to Portfolio Recovery Associates , LLC has not been identified, verified, or validated. Furthermore, according to the Certificate of Last Known Mailing Address certified by Portfolio Recovery Associates , LLC, is not factual. Actual Damages sought are erroneous and hereby disputed. Under the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ), Regulation V, Senate Bill 5480, I respectfully request Portfolio Recovery Associates , LLC to cease and desist all activity regarding this matter. Furthermore, I also request all billed accounts regarding this matter to be null/void/closed and harassing attempts to contact/collect be stopped, to include litigation.

Company response to consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief
Consumer complaint received 2026-04-07 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Auto debt
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt was paid
Company: TrueAccord Corp.
State: GA

Complaint narrative:
I Asked for the total loan amount on the car in which he stated XXXX but it was XXXX he stated the car was repossessed and thats a lie it was at the shop ( XXXX ) because it had a blown engine in which I had a warranty on it so the insurance company paid it off in full the account shows it was closed on XX/XX/XXXX then re opened by XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX why wait 2 years to put it on my credit? This is incorrect debt its already been resolved

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation