Total complaints
3
Filed since A de
2026 data Public-data reference. official source
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 consumer complaints recorded in the CFPB Consumer Complaint Database, with breakdowns by product, state, and complaint year.
3 consumer complaints filed with the CFPB
This profile shows 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's complaint history from CFPB public records. 3 consumers have filed complaints since A de. The company has a 0% timely response rate and has provided relief in 0% of cases.
3
Total Complaints
0%
Timely Response
0%
Disputed
0%
Relief Provided
1
States Active
A de
Since
Timely response
0%
CFPB-tracked response window
Relief rate
0%
Closed with monetary or non-monetary relief
Timely response rate 0.0%
Federal benchmark
CFPB benchmark: response within 15 calendar days of filing.
Relief rate 0.0%
Industry median
Share closed with monetary or non-monetary relief.
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 complaint mix by product
- hatred 3 100.0% – 0% relief
How 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's 3 complaints split across CFPB product categories. Resolution rate badge = % closed with monetary or non-monetary relief.
Complaints by Product
| Product | Complaints |
|---|---|
| hatred | 3 |
Top States
| State | Complaints |
|---|---|
| 105 Md. App. 743 | 3 |
Top Issues
| Issue | Complaints |
|---|---|
| thereby discouraging others in the community from having a good opinion of | 3 |
Source: CFPB Consumer Complaint Database CFPB Consumer Complaint Database
What the CFPB Record Shows About 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
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 has accumulated 3 consumer complaints in the CFPB public database, with filings active across 1 U.S. state. Of those submissions, 3 include a consumer narrative — the verbatim description of the reported problem that the CFPB collects alongside each filing. The earliest complaint on file dates back to A de, and the most recent logged activity is A defamato, giving this record a multi-year window of observable consumer sentiment.
Looking at response behavior, 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 reports a 0% timely-response rate and has closed 0% of cases with a written explanation to the consumer. 0% of complaints were closed with monetary or non-monetary relief — an outcome signal that tracks how often consumers walked away with some form of remediation. A further 0% of responses were formally disputed by the consumer after the company replied, a useful marker of resolution quality independent of sheer volume. The most-reported product category for this record is "hatred", and the single most common underlying issue is "thereby discouraging others in the community from having a good opinion of".
Complaint volume is heavily influenced by company size, customer base, and market footprint — larger financial institutions routinely carry more filings purely because they serve more consumers. A complaint is a consumer-reported allegation, not proven wrongdoing, and a timely or relief-flagged closure does not by itself confirm fault. Use this page as one input among many when evaluating 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: cross-check against the CFPB Consumer Complaint Database directly, review your own contract terms, and consult a licensed professional for financial, legal, or regulatory advice. This page is informational only.
Consumer Guides
Learn more about your rights and how to interpret complaint data.
Related Data
Explore additional financial data about companies, lenders, and institutions on our partner portals.
PlainBankData
Bank financial data — deposits, assets, branches, and regulatory filings for FDIC-insured institutions.
PlainAdvisorCheck
Financial advisor records — SEC and FINRA registration, disclosures, and disciplinary history.
PlainCU
Credit union data — financial performance, membership, rates, and NCUA regulatory information.
PlainInsurer
Insurance company data — financial strength, complaint ratios, market share, and state licensing.
PlainLender
Mortgage lender data — HMDA loan originations, approval rates, interest rates, and lending patterns.
Disclaimer: This data is from CFPB public records. PlainComplaint does not provide financial advice. A complaint does not indicate that a company has violated any law or regulation. Complaint volumes are influenced by company size, customer base, and market presence. Use this data as one of many inputs when evaluating a company.
Frequently Asked Questions
How many CFPB complaints does 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 have?
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 has received 3 consumer complaints filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Does 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 respond to complaints on time?
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 has a 0% timely response rate to CFPB complaints.
What is the most common complaint about 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?
The most common issue reported against 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 is "thereby discouraging others in the community from having a good opinion of" in the "hatred" product category.
Read our methodology — how this data is sourced, computed, and verified.
Related
