Browse Companies

Explore all 145.5K companies with CFPB consumer complaints

Company Complaints
719 ( Mo. 1926 ) 1
719. I presume that no Proof of the alleged debt 1
73 B.R. 110 1
734 F.2d 37 ( D.C. Cir. 1984 ) Technically accurate but misleading = violation Sepulvado v. CSC 3
737 F.3d 129 3
74 L.Ed.2d 225 1
758 F.3d 777 ( 6th Cir. 2014 ). 1
77 Elite 5
77 F. Supp. 1
77.,Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response,Experian Information Solutions Inc.,CA,90046,,Consent provided,Web,2025-10-03,Closed with explanation,Yes,N/A,16352101 1
779 1
78. 1
787 F. App'x 81 ( 3d Cir. XXXX XXXX 1
78m FDCPA 1
7th Circuit Court 1
8 3
8 ) XXXX XXXX XXXX 1
8 days before the start of the statement cycle. The only transactions during the statement cycle was a XXXX cent and XXXX cent deposit on the XXXX XXXX and later a XXXX cent withdrawal on XXXX XXXX. At no point during the statement cycle did the balance on my account dip below {$500.00} so I have no idea how Citibank calculated my average monthly balance to be {$400.00}. '' I then called Citibank to clarify this matter on XXXX XXXX 1
8 Investments Corporation dba MediComm 3
8 months 1
8 MONTHS later 1
8 pages attached. ) ( vi ) On XX/XX/2019 1
8 weeks!! XX/XX/XXXX : Spoke with Associate ( XXXX ) who confirmed the request had been made but no chat scripts had been received. I was promised a Manager callback on the same day but did not receive ( missing call # 1 ). XX/XX/XXXX : Spoke with Associate ( XXXX ). Re-iterated a request for a Manager callback but did not receive ( missing call # 2 ) XX/XX/XXXX : Call 1 : Spoke with Associate (?? ). Escalated to Manager ( XXXX XXXX who apparently disconnected the call and made no attempt to call me back ( missing call # 3 ) and so... Call 2 : Spoke with Associate (?? ) who indicated to me that Manager ( XXXX XXXX would call me back in 15 minutes. Did not receive a call ( missing call # 4 ) XX/XX/XXXX : Spoke with Associate (?? ) and then Manager ( XXXX XXXX. Manager was helpful and surprised by the level of service I was witnessing. We discussed internal Amex QA processes and that this issue was heading towards the Ombudsman if things did not get better. We agreed that next step was [ 1 ] to retrieve the chat logs from the IM Chat team so that the case history could properly be addressed and [ 2 ] to get a Senior Manager to review and provide next steps for resolution. I was to call back in 2 weeks for this update. XX/XX/XXXX : Call 1 : Spoke with Associate ( XXXX XXXX 1
8-102 ( 9 ) 6
8. ) The billing agreement I signed was actually a deceptive 2 piece document not disclosed to me upon signing the original billing agreement. The second half of the document was located in the student handbook given to my minor children who have no legal authority to agree to a billing agreement. Please visit the website below to see further complaints concerning XXXX practices. Also 1
8. Although there are far more detailed reasons for denying the pending motion 1
8. GT add a signature to contract of loan without consent 1
8. XXXXXX/XX/XXXXXXXX {$330.00} on XX/XX/XXXX It is also a host of fraudulent hard inquiries as well listed below : 1. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX - Inquiry date : XX/XX/XXXX 2
8/15/2007 ( N.D. Illinois ) 1
802 2
802 ( b ) 1
805 F.2d at 1263 ). 1
805 F.3d at 1240 ( citations omitted ) ) ) Hammoud 1
807 3
807 ( 10 ) 2
807 ( 2 ) ( B ) 1
807 ( 8 ) 2
807 ( 8 ) Metro 2 Format Section 6.2 3
808 9
809 6
809 ( a ) continued collection and false reporting of disputed debt I sent Midland a formal Cease and Desist / Validation Demand letter requiring them to stop all contact and provide full proof of the alleged account 1
809 ( b ) TILA violations for lack of accurate disclosures 6. XXXX XXXX XXXX / XXXX Balance : {$860.00} | Opened : XX/XX/XXXX Metro2 Violations : Field7 : No 03 code Field11 : No original creditor Field17A : No dispute flag Legal Violations : FCRA 1681e ( b ) 3
809 ). Despite these requirements 1
811 ( a ) ( 2 ) 3
815 ILCS 505/2LL. I expect this to be done within 30 days from the receipt of this complaint 3
82 Stat. 151 ; Pub. L. 111203 1
82 Stat. 158. ) I've attached exhibits to show that Carvana not only advertises Downpayments in various amounts but also changed the amount further along in the purchase process. This is an unfair and deceptive trade practices and a violation of the above regulation.,,Carvana Group 1
82.d 1
820 S.W.2d 748 1
84 Stat. 1128 ; amended 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.