CA with an IP Address XXXX SECOND INCIDENT XX/XX/XXXX @ XXXX to XXXX Beginning at XXXX PDT and ending at XXXX PDT on XX/XX/XXXX unauthorized access ( account compromised ) and additional unauthorized transactions occurred : One ( 1 ) unauthorized purchases of BTC using my XXXX XXXX card ending in XXXX PYMT SENT COINBASE XXXX XXXX CA Amount {$100.00} ; Ref # XXXX [ {$96.00} in BTC

What the CFPB Record Shows About CA with an IP Address XXXX SECOND INCIDENT XX/XX/XXXX @ XXXX to XXXX Beginning at XXXX PDT and ending at XXXX PDT on XX/XX/XXXX unauthorized access ( account compromised ) and additional unauthorized transactions occurred : One ( 1 ) unauthorized purchases of BTC using my XXXX XXXX card ending in XXXX PYMT SENT COINBASE XXXX XXXX CA Amount {$100.00} ; Ref # XXXX [ {$96.00} in BTC

CA with an IP Address XXXX SECOND INCIDENT XX/XX/XXXX @ XXXX to XXXX Beginning at XXXX PDT and ending at XXXX PDT on XX/XX/XXXX unauthorized access ( account compromised ) and additional unauthorized transactions occurred : One ( 1 ) unauthorized purchases of BTC using my XXXX XXXX card ending in XXXX PYMT SENT COINBASE XXXX XXXX CA Amount {$100.00} ; Ref # XXXX [ {$96.00} in BTC has accumulated 1 consumer complaint in the CFPB public database, with filings active across 1 U.S. state. Of those submissions, 1 includes 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 FIRS, and the most recent logged activity is FIRST INCI, giving this record a multi-year window of observable consumer sentiment.

Looking at response behavior, CA with an IP Address XXXX SECOND INCIDENT XX/XX/XXXX @ XXXX to XXXX Beginning at XXXX PDT and ending at XXXX PDT on XX/XX/XXXX unauthorized access ( account compromised ) and additional unauthorized transactions occurred : One ( 1 ) unauthorized purchases of BTC using my XXXX XXXX card ending in XXXX PYMT SENT COINBASE XXXX XXXX CA Amount {$100.00} ; Ref # XXXX [ {$96.00} in BTC 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 "AZ with an IP Address XXXX Beginning at XXXX PDT and ending at XXXX PDT on XX/XX/XXXX unauthorized access ( account compromised ) and a series of unauthorized transactions occurred : ( 1 ) Conversion of my XXXX XXXX to XXXX BTC [ Value = {$270.00} ]", and the single most common underlying issue is "Reference code XXXX ( 3 ) Three ( 3 ) unauthorized purchases of BTC using my XXXX debit card ending in XXXX : PYMT SENT COINBASE XXXX XXXX CA Amount {$450.00} ; Ref # XXXX [ {$430.00} in BTC".

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 CA with an IP Address XXXX SECOND INCIDENT XX/XX/XXXX @ XXXX to XXXX Beginning at XXXX PDT and ending at XXXX PDT on XX/XX/XXXX unauthorized access ( account compromised ) and additional unauthorized transactions occurred : One ( 1 ) unauthorized purchases of BTC using my XXXX XXXX card ending in XXXX PYMT SENT COINBASE XXXX XXXX CA Amount {$100.00} ; Ref # XXXX [ {$96.00} in BTC: 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.