Browse Companies

Explore all 145.5K companies with CFPB consumer complaints

145,512 companies

Sort by: Name Most Complaints Timely Response Most Recent
Company Complaints
2. Identity theft report and 3. Evidence of fraud ( statement affidavits 1
2. pre-approved 1
2. The proof of claim on subject property was also filed in court on or about XX/XX/XXXX -- Exhibit B '' ; And 1
2. Verification Issues : According to Section 609 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) of the FCRA 1
2. Verification Issues : According to Section 609 ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ) of the FCRA 1
2. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX - Inquiry date : XX/XX/XXXX 1
2.1.1 ( Summer XXXX ) 1
2/28/2007 ( N.D. Illinois ) ; Kenneth McCready vs. Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson 3
20 4
20 days later 1
20 U.S.C. 1232g. 3
20 USC 1232gb 1
20 years from now when loan matures This is fraudulent deception and worst discrimination possible,,JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.,NY,10021,,Consent provided,Web,2024-05-12,Closed with explanation,Yes,N/A,8990725 1
20+ credit cards ) are the 2 late-payments reported by CMG,,CMG Financial Services 1
20-21 ( 2016 ) Maryland recognizes the distinction between defamation per se and defamation per quod. The determination of whether an alleged defamatory statement is per se or per quod is a matter of law. Determining whether the defamatory statement is per se or per quod is intertwined with the issue of fault. Shapiro v. Massengill 3
200 provider addresses account for approximately one third of all accounts placed with Caine & Weiner. In addition 1
2002 ) - Information relating to the purchase of a bad debt is not proprietary or burdensome. Debtor must phrase their request clearly to obtain : The source of a debt and the amount a bad debt buyer paid for plaintiff 's debt 1
2003 1
2003 ). in reporting old debts with updated activity dates. According to the research I have done 1
2004 4
2005 WL 2172377 2
2008 1
2009 1
201 Conn.l ( 1986 ). and Solon v. Godbole 2
2010; Pub. L. 111203 1
2011 2
2011 ) ( breaking down the requirements of 1681e ( b ) 2
2011 WL 1085874 1
2013 ) 39 Misc. 3d 1220 ( A ) 1
2013 ). 1
2013 ; 82 FR 37769 1
2014 ) 4
2014 ) later and the damages had been done.,,JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.,MI,480XX,,Consent provided,Web,2015-04-23,Closed with monetary relief,Yes,No,1331067 1
2014 Illegally refinance Complainants car into a leased vehicle without consent On a Paid in Full Account. And show a debt of {$9.00} 1
2014 monthly installment. The Springleaf Financial Services ( Springleaf ) transaction history reflects the receipt of {$500.00} on XXXX XXXX 1
2014 WL 4403524 1
2014 XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 1
2014. During this time Ocwen charged me fees 1
2014. XXXX would have a complete year to collect escrow from me and according to my monthly statements LoanCare/Selene withhold an additional {$300.00} a month for escrow. I feel none of this would have ever happened if XXXX or both mortgage providers would have worked with me and addressed my questions. Instead I was met with threats of losing my home and constant remarks that I owe and just pay. I am also frustrated that later they increased my P & I payment from {$860.00} to over {$1000.00}. I was told that since I did not pay the {$1500.00} advance deposit that they altered my house payment to reflect the {$1500.00}. Under RESPA I can only be charged 2 months ' worth of escrow so the {$1500.00} is too much. I would have been fine with paying {$600.00} which is 2 months ' worth of escrow as long as they could explain why. I was also getting charged for hazard insurance because they would not recognize XXXX as my new insurer. In XXXX of 2014 1
2015 11
2015 ) 1
2015 ) ) 10
2015 ). 1
2015 - this tradeline was deleted. It has disappeared from ALL records at Equifax ( I just called them ) and the only remnants are the XXXX disputes I filed in XXXX and XXXX of this year. 1
2015 : Broker and/or Seller ( borrower ) request for preliminary final HUD approval for a close date of XXXX/XXXX/15 per the instructions of the approval letter from both the first and second lender XXXX XXXX 1
2015 ; they agent said 1
2015 and the payments for the loans are not XXXX. So i came to the conclusion the previous representative was angry with me and most likely did it not purpose 1
2015 and XXXX XXXX 2
2015 at XXXX 1
2015 at XXXX at my residence 1

What this index shows

This is the master index of every company that appears in the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) Consumer Complaint Database, mirrored on PlainComplaint and grouped by institution so a single company page rolls up every complaint filed against that company across every product, state, and year since 2011. The CFPB began collecting consumer complaints when it was established under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 and has published them as a public dataset to give consumers, researchers, and journalists a window into how U.S. financial-services firms respond to customer concerns.

The default view is alphabetical by company name and paginated 50 companies per page. Use the sort controls to re-order by total complaint volume (highest first), timely-response percentage (best response track record first), or most recent complaint activity (companies with the freshest reports). Each row links to a dedicated company page showing year-over-year complaint trends, the top complaint products, complaint issues, top states by volume, and a year-by-year breakdown of complaint counts and response timeliness.

How to compare companies fairly

Raw complaint volume is a function of two things: how many customers the company serves, and how it handles those customers. A nationwide bank with tens of millions of accounts can show six-figure complaint counts simply because of its scale; a smaller regional lender with a few hundred complaints may actually have a higher per-customer complaint rate. The "Timely Response %" column shows the share of complaints the company answered within the CFPB's deadline — a stronger comparable metric across firms of different sizes. Pair it with the volume column to form a fuller picture, and dig into the company page for the breakdown by product so you can see whether issues are concentrated in a single line of business (for example, credit reporting) or spread across the entire firm.

Complaint records are consumer-submitted narratives. The CFPB does not adjudicate or verify the facts in each report before publishing; companies are given the opportunity to respond, dispute, or resolve. Many complaints are resolved with monetary or non-monetary relief. The strength of the dataset is in its scale — millions of records spanning every major U.S. consumer financial category — and its neutrality: it reports what consumers said, regardless of the company's perspective. Treat individual records accordingly, and lean on aggregate patterns (top issues, year-over-year trends, state distribution) when drawing conclusions.

What the dataset covers

The CFPB Consumer Complaint Database covers complaints against banks, credit-card issuers, mortgage servicers, debt collectors, payday lenders, student-loan servicers, money-transfer companies, prepaid-card issuers, credit bureaus, auto-finance lenders, and other financial products and services regulated by the agency. Complaints are categorized by product (the broad financial-services category) and sub-product, and again by issue (the specific consumer concern, e.g. "incorrect information on your report") and sub-issue. Year-by-year coverage runs from 2011 to present, with monthly refreshes published by the CFPB.

PlainComplaint refreshes from the agency's public release on a regular cadence and re-derives all aggregate counts, rankings, and trend lines on each refresh, so the page you're reading reflects the latest snapshot of the public database. See the methodology page for the full data pipeline, dedup rules, and the refresh schedule, or browse by other dimensions: issues, products, or states.