Prepaid card -- Problem with a purchase or transfer -- Complaint #12410119

Complaint Overview

Complaint ID: 12410119

Company: Paypal Holdings, INC

Product: Prepaid card

Sub-Product: General-purpose prepaid card

Issue: Problem with a purchase or transfer

Sub-Issue: Card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase or transfer

State: Virginia

ZIP Code: 236XX

Date Received: 2025-02-25T12:00:00-05:00

Date Sent to Company: 2025-03-11T12:00:00-05:00

Company Response: Closed with explanation

Timely Response: Yes

Consumer Disputed: N/A

Submitted Via: Web

Consumer Narrative

The company is showing gross negligence to an ongoing set of situations, first encounter to address is that Im contending PayPal for withholding {$820.00} of my funds against my will depriving me of my funds and violating the constitutional rights. The funds are claimed on an account associated with an email that has my name being an copyright/trademark name and sole owner on the operating agreement for my company, PayPal has proceeded in gross negligence by refusing to remedy their erroneous errors and claims of parting ways as an direct, inexcusable recourse for witholding funds, Paypal continues to maintain and manage the account after I have provided ample notice of revocation of the agreement and requested for recession to the inception of the account. Next encounter, is that I have followed up with an Revocation of Power of Attorney and Revocation of Security interest that at the time for my cognizance of their negligence were concealed, yet upon their interpretation received. A contract or clause is procedurally unconscionable if it is a contract of adhesion. This arised awareness as relationship was premised on them having an contract of adhesion, in turn, is a standardized contract, which imposed and drafted by the party of superior bargaining strengthens, relegates to the subscribing party only the opportunity to adhere to the contract or reject it. PayPal at the time has not dispute that the agreement and on a recorded line claims I need to acquire legal council, as to the clause at issue here meet this definition, it asserts that the instant contract is not procedurally unconscionable because it does not concern essential items such as food or clothing and because I had meaningful alternative sources for the subject services. You may see the concern that PayPal on a recorded call has given misrepresentation of legal binding advice after our several attempts to resolve the matter privately. There are federal consumer protected laws contractual and rights to make and enforce contracts including the making, performance, modification, and termination of contracts, as well as the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship. I would like to also address that, once I became cognizant of discriminatory practices while receiving Adverse Action in the application extension of credit. To the best of recollection, I provided ample noticeto PayPal in concern of this, that the intolerable of discriminatory practice regulators prohibits a pattern or practice of discrimination by the to whom liable companies. I have stated claims of such violations and now report this to this regulator that prohibits creditors from discriminating against applicants where my application were based in part or on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age, the receipt of public assistance, or the exercise of rights under the Consumer Credit Protection Act. I have opened an complaint with the in our objective to resolve this indifference immediately between Paypal alleging that a creditor denied extension of our credit both business and personal. Moreover, questioning competence to contract, an act ordinary persons would regard as insulting-regarding the to whom liable companies discriminatory conduct, I have no other reason but to believe that the Paypal continue to engage in these unlawful acts against me. PayPal has discriminated against me based on my status as : An XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX friend of the United States, and an XXXX individual Im here to stat that PayPal is in fact XXXX engaged in conduct that deprived me of rights, privileges, and immunities written by congress under the XVI Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and VII Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. PayPal actions are not only negligent, including but not limited to leaking source data that was without the my written or implied consent protecting equal credit protection under colorable law, directly violated my constitutional rights, causing significant harm. Paypal knew or should have known that their conduct was unlawful and in direct contravention of clearly established constitutional rights. As a direct and proximate result of PayPals conduct, I suffered harm, including intentional infliction of emotional distress. I was unsheltered due to the direct effects, job loss and several storage foreclosures due to inaccessibility to extend credit otherwise would have prevented devastation. To whom liable companies as partners of these actions along with Paypal, as PayPal deprived me of federally protected rights under the Constitution and laws of the United States. There are facts that constitute a breach of contract by PayPal for which i'm is due reward Consequential of the violations of the agreement and herein due reimbursement that are appropriately awarded in my favorXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( specifically, the " CRA data furnishing company hereinafter ( Credit Reporting Agencies or CRA ) each violated the law by failing to establish and/or follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy in the preparation of my consumer reports and the credit files it published and maintained concerning me. Had CRA maintained reasonable procedures to assure maximum accuracy, Data furnishing companies would never have allowed PayPal to report the account as described herein. CRA knew, or should have known ( 1 ) that PayPal account was reporting inaccuracies based on my dispute ( s ) and provided documentation, and ( 2 ) the account was inaccurately listed as Individual when it was in fact a Commercial account as mentioned by to whom liable companies. Furthermore, above-referenced companies knew, or should have known, that this inaccurate and incomplete reporting does not reflect maximum possible accuracy and completeness as required by the FCRA. Paypal knew, or should have known, ( 1 ) that PayPal account was reporting inaccuracies based on Plaintiff 's dispute ( s ) and provided documentation, and ; ( 2 ) the account was inaccurately listed as Individual when it was in fact a Commercial account as mentioned by PayPal. Further, PayPal knew, or should have known, that this inaccurate and incomplete reporting does not reflect maximum possible accuracy and completeness as required by the FCRA. Congress specifically recognized the " elaborate mechanism developed for investigating and evaluating creditworthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, character, and general reputation of consumers. The investigation and evaluation of my creditworthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, character, and general reputation as a consumer are all damaged by the inaccurate reporting the CRA to companies allowed. As a result of the CRA several credit reporting laws, that I suffered actual damages, including but not limited to : damage to reputation, embarrassment, humiliation, dissemination of inaccurate information, diminished credit, and other mental and emotional distress. The CRA companies regularly, as a policy, ignore disputes by consumers and fail to perform even a basic investigation regarding disputes. Additionally, the CRA companies regularly fail to forward dispute processes correctly. To the extent that the CRA companies do send consumer disputes, the CRA companies send these disputes to employees who do not live within the continental United States to hide or subvert a consumer 's ability to confront the individual ( s ) directly responsible for approving accurate reporting. Instead, the CRA companies respective employees receive little to no training concerning how to accurately report consumer debt. Instead, the CRA respective employees are instructed to report whatever information a data furnisher provides regardless of whether the information is accurate.The CRA companies respective employees are regularly expected to review and approve over ninety ( 90 ) disputes per day, rendering less than five ( 5 ) minutes to review, investigate, and respond to each dispute received. The CRA companies have intentionally set up this system in order to undermine, hide, and otherwise frustrate consumers ' ability to properly dispute and correct credit reports. As a result of the CRA ' violation of maximum possible accuracy, I suffered actual harm, including, but not limited to : damage to reputation, embarrassment, humiliation, dissemination of inaccurate information, diminished credit, and other mental and emotional distress. The CRA violations were willful, rendering each individually liable for punitive damages in an amount to be determined. In the alternative, each of the CRA companies were negligent, which entitles for me to recover The involved parties discriminated against me based on my status as, An XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX friend of the United States, A XXXX individual. My complaint with the government agency alleging that a creditor denied extension of Plaintiff credit and treated Plaintiff unfairly in a credit transaction based solely on age, which is prohibited under the written law questioning competence to contract, an act ordinary persons would regard as insulting-regarding the companies discriminatory conduct, Plaintiff believe that the companies continue to engage in these unlawful acts against Plaintiff. The company ( s ) discriminated against me based on my status as : An XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX friend of the United States, A XXXX individual Involved companies knowingly used the United States Postal Service to send fraudulent , misleading, or deceptive correspondences that falsely represented the status and accuracy of Plaintiff 's credit information. These actions were committed with the intent to deceive Plaintiff and financial institutions, causing financial and reputitional harm. As a direct result, I suffered damages including emotional distress, financial loss, and harm to creditworthiness. The involved parties made false and defamatory oral statements concerning Plaintiff 's creditworthiness, falsely alleging financial irresponsibility. These statements were made with reckless disregard for the truth and caused reputation harm, economic injury, and mental distress. As a result, I have suffered significant financial and personal harm.The companies knowingly and maliciously published false written statements about Plaintiffs credit history that were injurious and defamatory. These statements were disseminated to third parties, including financial institutions, causing damage to Plaintiffs reputation and credit standing. Above-referenced Companies actions constitute libel per se, entitling Plaintiff to compensatory and punitive damages. Companies owed Plaintiff a duty of care to accurately and responsibly report credit information. Companies breached this duty by failing to investigate disputes, failing to ensure accuracy, and willfully ignoring evidence provided by me. Companies by means of ordinary reason or ordinary care should have known such acts were Gross negligent hindering performance and productivity of Me and my brand. I suffered financial harm, damage to creditworthiness, and emotional distress. The facts and circumstances described a fraudulent inducement by companies perpetrated on me where Consequential damages are appropriately ordered in favor of account holder and against above-referenced companies in the amount found justifiable by Jury for consequential damages. Awarded prioritized relief in favor of Plaintiff by virtue of the fraud, fraudulent inducement, in an amount of no less than justifiable by Jury. An award of productivity fees is appropriately granted in favor of me, as the nature of what companies commits to Plaintiffs are found by ordinary persons intolerable or avoidable futuristic damages. I have possessed first in line and first in time right to title for which companies provided no consideration to the usage of my name or my company name, in which they used as a benefit for the value of whichto be proven adequately herein by full investigation of the Credit Reporting Agencies and Paypalthat is attributable to the use of the name, copyright, or trademark. That with intent to defraud, devised a scheme involving trickery to deprive Plaintiff of said rights accessible to the established account. Companies employed a deceptive actusing false pretenses or fabricated documents, both digital and tangible, as a calculated misrepresentationdelivered through written communication via XXXX mail, to mislead me into believing Companies had lawful authority or justification to act on Plaintiffs behalf by means of his endorsement. Companies did in fact bamboozled me, a devised schemed, designed to conceal their true intent : to gain control over or dispose of my assets for companies own benefit, as they refute providing us with the accounting ledger as regulated by FASB ( Federal Accounting Standards Board ) that would reflect the cash flow, asset and liabilities along with the S-3 and S-4 registrars. I have unpacked the deception and reasonably pierced the cloak on claimed companies continuance fraudulent trick for further action that may be availed remedy for myself and my company, as they've acted in accordance with the misrepresentation leading to my requests for accounting regulated by FASB ( Federal Accounting Standards Board ) proving above-referenced companies deception where companies at trial to provide, thereby transferring or relinquishing control of the assets to above-referenced companies or a third party under above-referenced companies direction. Companies conduct constitutes fraud by trick : a deliberate misrepresentation, executed through deceitful means, with knowledge of its falsity, intended to induce my reliance, and resulting in my detriment. The use of trickery distinguishes this fraud as a calculated ploy to exploit my trust or earn from their clients misfortune.

Frequently Asked Questions

Disclaimer

This analysis is AI-generated based on publicly available CFPB complaint data. It does not constitute financial or legal advice.

Related Pages

• Paypal Holdings, INC Company Profile
• Prepaid card Complaints
• Problem with a purchase or transfer Complaints
• Virginia Complaints
• Company Rankings
• Company Directory
• Search Complaints