{"took":226,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":5,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"21440945","_score":35.21659,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"I am filing a formal complaint against KeyBank regarding its handling of unauthorized recurring ACH debits from my account. \n\nBeginning in XX/XX/year>, a series of recurring ACH withdrawals in the amount of {$140.00} were debited from my account each month on or around the 10th, by a merchant listed as XXXX XXXX XXXX AP. These withdrawals continued consistently for approximately four years. I did not authorize these transactions and have no relationship with this company. Upon discovering the issue, I promptly contacted KeyBank to report the transactions as unauthorized. The bank closed my account and initiated a dispute.\n\nKeyBank denied reimbursement for the majority of the debits, citing a 60-day notification rule and asserting that no error occurred. This determination is conclusory, unsupported by evidence, and reflects a failure to conduct a reasonable investigation. \nThis determination is conclusory, unsupported by evidence, and reflects a failure to conduct a reasonable investigation.\n\nCritically, KeyBanks response does not indicate that it : -Obtained or reviewed any ACH authorization -Requested proof of authorization from the originating merchant -Conducted any substantive analysis as to whether t\n\nhe debits were authorized Instead, KeyBank relied exclusively on a procedural timing defense to deny the claim. Under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, a financial institution is required to conduct a good-faith and reasonable investigation of alleged errors. While notification timing may affect certain liability limitations, it does not eliminate the requirement that transactions be authorized in the first instance.\n\nAdditionally, ACH network rules require that valid authorization be obtained and retained for all debits. To date, KeyBank has not produced, referenced, or confirmed the existence of any such authorization.\n\nKeyBanks position raises serious concerns : -It declared no error occurred without verifying authorization -It failed to perform a reasonable investigation into whether the debits were authorized -It relied on a timing technicality while disregarding whether the transactions were authorized This conduct also raises concerns under New York law XXXX By asserting that no error occurred without verifying whether the recurring debits were authorized, KeyBank provided a misleading and incomplete explanation of my rights as a consumer. This appears inconsistent with New York General Business Law 349, which prohibits deceptive acts and practices in consumer transactions. A reasonable consumer would expect that a bank claiming no error has verified whether the transactions were in fact authorized. \n\nFurther, the failure to determine whether these debits were properly authorized raises concerns as to whether these transactions were properly payable under applicable law. \n\nI am formally requesting that KeyBank : -Produce the complete ACH authorization ( signed, recorded, or otherwise verifiable ) permitting XXXX XXXX XXXX AP to debit my account -Provide a detailed account of its investigation, including all steps taken to verify authorization -Reimburse all debits if valid authorization can not be produced If KeyBank is unable to produce valid authorization, its continued refusal to reimburse these transactions raises significant concerns regarding compliance with consumer protection obligations governing electronic fund transfers. \n\nI am requesting regulatory review of KeyBanks investigative practices and denial rationale.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-04-21T15:22:51.000Z","issue":"Problem with a lender or other company charging your account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"10977","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"21440945","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"KEYCORP","date_received":"2026-04-21T15:14:19.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Transaction was not authorized"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["KeyBanks position raises serious concerns : -It declared no error occurred without verifying authorization -It failed to perform a reasonable <em>investigation</em> into <em>whether</em> the <em>debits</em> <em>were</em> <em>authorized</em> -It <em>relied</em> on a <em>timing</em> technicality while disregarding <em>whether</em> the transactions <em>were</em> <em>authorized</em> This conduct also raises concerns under New York law XXXX By asserting that no error occurred without verifying <em>whether</em> the recurring <em>debits</em> <em>were</em> <em>authorized</em>, KeyBank provided a misleading and incomplete explanation"],"sub_issue":["Transaction was not <em>authorized</em>"]},"sort":[35.21659,"21440945"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"20850524","_score":28.518274,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"Chase bank. \nI discovered multiple unauthorized transactions in the form of remotely created/digital checks debited from my account. I did not authorize these transactions in any way, nor did I provide permission to any company or entity to create or process these items. \n\nJPMorgan Chase denied my claim, stating that all online remote transactions are authorized and that my claim falls outside their reporting timeframe.\n\nThis response is inadequate and incorrect for the following reasons : 1. Lack of Proof of Authorization The bank has not provided any evidence that I authorized these transactions. A transaction being conducted remotely or electronically does not constitute valid authorization. I am requesting documentation showing the specific authorization relied upon, including timestamps, IP/device data, or any authorization agreement.\n\n2. Improper Blanket Determination Chases assertion that all remote or digital check transactions are authorized is factually and legally flawed. Unauthorized remotely created checks are a known form of fraud. The bank appears to have denied my claim based on assumption rather than a reasonable investigation.\n\n3. Failure to Conduct a Reasonable Investigation The denial suggests that Chase relied solely on timing rather than evaluating whether the transactions were actually authorized. This does not meet the standard of a reasonable investigation into fraud.\n\n4. Unauthorized Nature of the Transactions These transactions were not initiated, approved, or knowingly permitted by me. If my account information was used, it was done without my knowledge or consent.\n\n5. Consumer Protection Concerns Even if the bank believes reporting was delayed, that does not eliminate the requirement to investigate unauthorized transactions or provide proof of authorization. I did not knowingly benefit from or participate in these transactions","date_sent_to_company":"2026-04-01T16:48:06.000Z","issue":"Problem with a lender or other company charging your account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"92024","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"20850524","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","date_received":"2026-04-01T16:36:26.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Transaction was not authorized"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["The bank appears to have denied my claim based on assumption rather than a reasonable <em>investigation</em>.\n\n3. Failure to Conduct a Reasonable <em>Investigation</em> The denial suggests that Chase <em>relied</em> solely on <em>timing</em> rather than evaluating <em>whether</em> the transactions <em>were</em> actually <em>authorized</em>. This does not meet the standard of a reasonable <em>investigation</em> into fraud.\n\n4. Unauthorized Nature of the Transactions These transactions <em>were</em> not initiated, approved, or knowingly permitted by me."],"sub_issue":["Transaction was not <em>authorized</em>"]},"sort":[28.518274,"20850524"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"21712294","_score":18.118021,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"UPDATED CFPB RESPONSE ( STRONG VERSION ) Consumer Rebuttal Statement Bank of Americas response fails to address the core issue and continues to mischaracterize this dispute. \nI am NOT disputing that funds were removed from my account. \nI am disputing that the debit should never have been allowed in the first place because it resulted from an improper and unsubstantiated ACH reversal. \n\nCritical Clarification This matter involves : A completed transaction with verified proof of delivery A post-delivery reversal initiated by the buyers bank Bank of Americas decision to accept and process that reversal without proper validation Additional Key Facts Ignored by Bank of America The dispute was initiated while the transaction was still processing The ACH activity had not fully settled when the reversal actions began I made multiple in-person visits to Bank of America branches immediately after Bank representatives reviewed the situation They acknowledged the situation appeared irregular and concerning given the transaction amount and documentation The debit amount was significant and abnormal It should have triggered heightened scrutiny before allowing a reversal Improper Reliance on Non-Authorization Documentation Bank of America continues to rely on a bogus and irrelevant document as justification. \nSpecifically : The document provided is NOT an authorization for this transaction or reversal It is merely : A general account profile / enrollment record Related to Bank of America and XXXX setup documentation from XXXX This raises a critical issue : How is a general account enrollment document from XXXX being used to justify authorization for a completely separate, later ACH reversal transaction? \n\nThere is : No transaction-specific authorization No evidence I approved a reversal No evidence I consented to this debit Core Issue Being Disputed This is not a basic debit confirmation issue. \nThis is : An invalid ACH reversal that Bank of America improperly accepted and processed, despite : Completed delivery of goods Proof of fulfillment Lack of valid authorization Lack of proper supporting documentation Failure of Bank of Americas Investigation Bank of America has : Focused only on confirming that a debit occurred Failed to analyze the legitimacy of the reversal request Failed to evaluate whether proper authorization existed Relied on irrelevant documentation instead of transaction-specific proof Requested Resolution I am requesting that this be escalated and corrected : Conduct a proper investigation into the validity of the ACH reversal Require actual transaction-specific authorization evidence Review the proof of delivery and completed performance of the transaction Determine whether the reversal complied with ACH/NACHA rules Reimburse the improperly debited funds Final Statement This is a clear case of : A wrongful reversal after successful delivery Combined with improper acceptance of a debit without valid authorization Bank of America must address the legitimacy of the reversal itself, not simply confirm that funds were removed. \n\nPARALLEL DEMAND LETTER TO BANK OF AMERICA LEGAL This is what you send directly to escalation/legal ( email or certified mail ). \n\nSubject : Formal Demand for Reversal of Improper ACH Debit To : Bank of America Legal / Executive Resolution Team Re : Unauthorized / Improper ACH Reversal Demand for Remedy To Whom It May Concern, I am writing to formally demand resolution regarding an improper ACH reversal and resulting debit from my account. \n\nBackground A transaction was completed involving the sale of equipment The equipment was successfully delivered, with verifiable proof of delivery Following fulfillment, the buyers bank initiated a reversal Bank of America accepted and processed that reversal, removing funds from my account Dispute Clarification This is not a dispute regarding whether funds were debited. \nThis is a dispute regarding : Bank XXXX XXXX improper acceptance of a reversal that lacked valid authorization and justification Material Deficiencies in Bank of Americas Position 1. Reliance on Irrelevant Documentation Bank of America has referenced documentation that : Is unrelated to the transaction Appears to be account enrollment/profile documentation from XXXX ( Bank of America XXXX XXXX ) Does not constitute authorization for this specific ACH debit or reversal XXXX. Lack of Transaction-Specific Authorization No evidence has been provided demonstrating : My authorization for this debit My consent to reverse the transaction Any valid ACH authorization tied to this event XXXX. Improper Processing During Active Transaction State The dispute/reversal activity occurred during or immediately after processing This timing alone should have triggered enhanced review procedures XXXX. Failure to Apply Reasonable Risk Controls The amount of the debit was significant The transaction involved delivered physical goods Proof of delivery exists Despite these facts : The reversal was processed without adequate verification No meaningful investigation into legitimacy occurred Damages As a direct result of Bank of Americas actions : Funds were improperly removed A completed and fulfilled transaction was effectively reversed without cause Business and financial harm resulted Demand for Resolution I hereby demand that Bank of America : Reverse the improper ACH debit immediately Provide documentation showing : Specific authorization for the reversal Compliance with applicable ACH/NACHA rules Conduct a formal internal review of : Decision-making process Documentation relied upon Notice of Escalation If this matter is not resolved promptly, I will : Continue escalation through the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Pursue additional legal remedies available under applicable banking and commercial laws Conclusion This situation represents a failure to properly evaluate an ACH reversal and a reliance on documentation that does not constitute valid authorization. \nI expect prompt correction and resolution. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX Previous Statement : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX Email : XXXX | XXXX : XXXX Companies involved : Bank of America , N.A . ( XXXX  my business bank ) XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX. ( XXXX  customers bank ) XXXX XXXX Payments ( Payment processor ) Subject : Improper ACH reversal of {$18000.00} ; refusal by banks to consider full evidence or initiate required XXXX escalation ; processor misrepresentation of cleared status. \nBackground & Timeline ( XXXX. ) : An ACH payment for {$18000.00} was deposited into my business account and remained there for nearly a month. I shipped XXXX XXXX and have proof of authorization, proof of delivery ( POD ), carrier logs, images, IP/payment logs, and communications with the buyer. \nOn XX/XX/XXXX, Bank of America processed an Unauthorized ACH Return ( Corporate form ). I signed the banks form and repeatedly provided full supporting evidence in-branch and via resubmissions Chase appears to have relied solely on the initial ACH Unauthorized form and did not review ( or Bank of America did not ensure XXXX received/acknowledged XXXX the complete evidence packet ( authorization, POD, logs, communications ). I handdelivered and resent this packet multiple times ; BofA also resent it. \nXXXX displayed the transaction as cleared, which triggered shipment. After reversal, they provided no effective merchant protection or dispute handoff to the banks. ( Processors commonly route ACH but merchant appeal paths are limited ; ACH reversals are often final at bank level and merchants must rely on the banks processes or civil remedies. ) Issues : Chases negligence / process failure : XXXX did not review or acknowledge the full record before accepting/maintaining the unauthorized return. This omitted material evidence showing a properly authorized and fulfilled sale. \nBank of Americas process failure : BofA failed to ensure the complete file ( authorization, POD, logs, communications ) was formally acknowledged and adjudicated by XXXX, and has refused to initiate XXXX rule enforcement/arbitrationan action only banks can initiatethereby denying me due process under NACHAs network rules. ( Merchants can not file ACH arbitration ; disputes are final at bank level absent bankinitiated escalation. ) [ XXXX ], [ XXXX ] XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX cleared status and lack of merchant protection led to shipment and subsequent loss ; they did not provide a transparent dispute handoff or advocacy. \n\nHarm : Loss of {$18000.00} inventory revenue after goods delivered Freight and handling costs Time and administrative burden attempting to correct interbank failures Requested CFPB Actions : Require Bank of America to initiate XXXX rule enforcement/arbitration against XXXX and to document that the complete evidence file is on record with a named case owner and escalation path. ( Only banks can initiate these XXXX processes ; merchant appeals are otherwise unavailable. ) [ XXXXXXXX ] Require XXXX to reopen/review the case and adjudicate the complete evidence file, not just the initial form. \nRequire both banks to provide their internal dispute logs and decision rationale to CFPB, including timestamps of when the full packet was received/accepted or refused. ( Banks must follow XXXX XXXX for investigation and interbank collaboration. ) [ XXXX ] Require XXXX XXXX explain : What cleared means operationally for ACH in their product, Why no merchant protection applied after reversal, What their escalation handoff to banks/processors is, and why it failed here. \n\n\nProvide a written status update within XXXX business days and a final determination within XXXX business days. \n\nAttachments ( available on request to CFPB ) : Bank of America Unauthorized ACH Return form ( dated XX/XX/XXXX ) Proof of authorization ( invoice/contract, digital logs, IP ) Proof of delivery ( POD, carrier records, delivery images/video ) Communications timeline ( emails, texts, call notes ) Processor ( XXXX  ) cleared confirmations XXXX  said I should screen my customers & as an owner with over XXXX transactions a month we do & told them we flagged this customer as fraud & they chose to proceed & confirm funds & transaction & I have proof of this as I didnt expect the other bank to all of a sudden even with me being a direct dealer for the largest manufacturer & distributor globally, XXXX, with signed POD XXXX all attached emails & I spoke to customer verbally to just take the funds out 30 days after they were in my account with the reason that I was not a company recognized by customer which is fraud","date_sent_to_company":"2026-04-29T16:38:56.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"306XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"21712294","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2026-04-29T16:29:58.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Problem using a debit or ATM card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This omitted material evidence showing a properly <em>authorized</em> and fulfilled sale."],"sub_issue":["Problem using a <em>debit</em> or ATM card"]},"sort":[18.118021,"21712294"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"20859625","_score":17.808353,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"I dispute Wells Fargos XX/XX/XXXX response. The banks response is insufficient, conclusory, and does not resolve my complaint. I dispute both the denial of my claim and Wells Fargos refusal to refund the overdraft fees tied to the disputed activity. \n\nWells Fargo says it completed research, but its letter does not show a reasonable, documented investigation of the disputed transfers. Under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E, once a consumer gives timely notice of an alleged error, the financial institution must investigate the alleged error, determine whether an error occurred, and report the results to the consumer within the required time. If the institution can not complete the investigation within 10 business days, it may use provisional credit, but the investigation still must be concluded within the applicable regulatory period, and the consumer must have full use of the provisionally credited funds during the investigation. 15 U.S.C. 1693f ( a ), ( c ).\n\nWells Fargos response does not provide the factual basis necessary to justify denial. The letter says only that Wells Fargo did not identify evidence that the payment was made by an alternate method, could not locate charges on an alternate Wells Fargo account, and found the disputed transactions consistent with prior undisputed activity. Those are generalized conclusions, not a transaction-specific explanation showing what records were reviewed, what merchant or network data was obtained, what account evidence was compared, or how Wells Fargo determined that the disputed transactions were actually authorized by me. Regulation E requires a real investigation and a written explanation of findings if the bank concludes no error occurred. 12 C.F.R. 1005.11 ( c ), ( d ).\n\nThe CFPBs official commentary also makes clear that a financial institution must begin its investigation promptly upon receipt of an oral notice and may not delay until it receives written confirmation. It also states that if an error occurred, the institution must correct the error, including refunding any fees imposed by the institution, where applicable. 12 C.F.R. Part 1005, Official Interpretations to 1005.11 ( c ).\n\nI also dispute Wells Fargos apparent effort to rely on prior undisputed activity, receipt of benefit, or a broad transaction pattern instead of proving authorization of the disputed transfers. Under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E, consumer liability for unauthorized electronic fund transfers is limited by law, and the bank must comply with Regulation E before imposing liability on the consumer for an unauthorized EFT claim. 15 U.S.C. 1693g ( a ) ; 12 C.F.R. 1005.6 ( b ) ; Official Interpretations to 1005.11 ( b ). \nThe response is also deficient because it does not provide the documentation underlying Wells Fargos determination. If a financial institution determines that no error occurred, it must provide an explanation of its findings, include notice of the consumers right to request the documents relied upon, and, upon request, promptly provide reproductions of the documents it relied on. 15 U.S.C. 1693f ( d ) ; 12 C.F.R. 1005.11 ( d ) ( 1 ). The CFPBs official commentary further states that the institution must provide copies in understandable form. \n\nI am therefore formally requesting that Wells Fargo produce all documents and data it relied upon in denying my claim and reversing the provisional credit, including but not limited to internal claim notes, transaction logs, account comparisons, merchant information, network records, screenshots, and any other material used to conclude that no error occurred. Regulation E expressly provides that those documents must be produced upon request. \n\nI also dispute Wells Fargos refusal to refund the overdraft fees listed in its own response. Wells Fargo identified XXXX overdraft fees of {$35.00} each, totaling {$420.00}. Those fees are : Account ending in XXXX : XXXX payment posted XX/XX/XXXX {$35.00} fee applied XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX posted XX/XX/XXXX {$35.00} fee applied XX/XX/XXXX Account ending in XXXX : XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX posted XX/XX/XXXX {$35.00} fee applied XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX posted XX/XX/XXXX {$35.00} fee applied XX/XX/XXXX XXXX * XXXX XXXX XXXX posted XX/XX/XXXX {$35.00} fee applied XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX {$35.00} fee applied XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX posted XX/XX/XXXX {$35.00} fee applied XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX NJ posted XX/XX/XXXX {$35.00} fee applied XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX posted XX/XX/XXXX {$35.00} fee applied XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX posted XX/XX/XXXX {$35.00} fee applied XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX posted XX/XX/XXXX {$35.00} fee applied XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX  posted XX/XX/XXXX {$35.00} fee applied XX/XX/XXXX That is {$420.00} in overdraft fees identified by Wells Fargo . Wells Fargo also says one {$35.00} courtesy refund was issued on XX/XX/XXXX for the XX/XX/XXXX XXXX transaction, which means at least {$380.00} remains outstanding even under Wells Fargos own accounting. \n\nThese fees should not have been dismissed with a blanket statement about Wells Fargos posting practices. The bank still must explain, transaction by transaction and fee by fee, why each overdraft fee remains valid, especially where the fees were tied to disputed transactions and where Wells Fargo reversed provisional credit after denying the claim. The CFPBs official commentary states that if an error occurred, the institution must correct the error, including refunding fees imposed by the institution where applicable, and that upon debiting provisional credit, the institution may not impose fees for items it is required to honor under 1005.11.\n\nWells Fargos letter also states that it reversed the provisional credit of {$74.00} on XX/XX/XXXX. If Wells Fargo debited provisional credit after concluding no error occurred, Regulation E required a written explanation of findings and notice of my right to request the documents relied upon, and those documents must be provided promptly upon request. 12 C.F.R. 1005.11 ( d ) ( 1 ) - ( 2 ) ; 15 U.S.C. 1693f ( d ).\n\nWells Fargos handling of this matter also appears to raise UDAAP concerns under the Consumer Financial Protection Act. The CFPB may prevent a covered person from engaging in an unfair, deceptive, or abusive act or practice in connection with a consumer financial product or service, and it is unlawful for a covered person to engage in an unfair, deceptive, or abusive act or practice. 12 U.S.C. 5531 ( a ), 5536 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ). An act or practice is unfair where it causes or is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers, the injury is not reasonably avoidable by consumers, and the injury is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or competition. 12 U.S.C. 5531 ( c ). Here, Wells Fargo reversed provisional credit, retained overdraft fees, and provided only a conclusory explanation rather than a transparent, evidence-based explanation of how it determined the disputed transactions were authorized. That caused concrete monetary harm to me in the form of unreimbursed fees and charges, and that harm was not reasonably avoidable once the bank controlled the investigation, the provisional credit decision, and the fee determinations. To the extent Wells Fargo failed to conduct a sufficient investigation, failed to provide a meaningful explanation, or retained fees without adequate support, that conduct appears to raise unfairness concerns under UDAAP.\n\nI am asking CFPB to require Wells Fargo to : 1. Reopen the investigation.\n\n2. Produce all documents and evidence relied upon in denying claim number XXXX and reversing the provisional credit. \n3. Provide a transaction-by-transaction explanation of how Wells Fargo concluded the disputed activity was authorized.\n\n4. Provide a fee-by-fee explanation of why each of the 12 overdraft fees remains valid. \n5. Refund all overdraft fees identified in the letter, totaling {$420.00}, or at minimum refund the outstanding {$380.00} Wells Fargo still appears to owe after the single {$35.00} courtesy refund it claims to have issued. \n6. Confirm whether Wells Fargo fully complied with the timing, investigation, provisional credit, written explanation, and document-production requirements of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E.\n\n7. Evaluate whether Wells Fargos conduct also constitutes an unfair act or practice under the Consumer Financial Protection Act/UDAAP provisions. \n\nMy position is straightforward : Wells Fargo has not shown a sufficient basis to deny my claim, has not provided the records it relied upon, and has not justified retaining the overdraft fees listed in its own response. I request that CFPB continue to pursue this matter and require a substantive response with supporting documentation.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-04-01T20:14:33.000Z","issue":"Problem caused by your funds being low","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"282XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"20859625","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2026-04-01T20:09:33.000Z","state":"NC","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Overdrafts and overdraft fees"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Confirm <em>whether</em> Wells Fargo fully complied with the <em>timing</em>, <em>investigation</em>, provisional credit, written explanation, and document-production requirements of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E.\n\n7. Evaluate <em>whether</em> Wells Fargos conduct also constitutes an unfair act or practice under the Consumer Financial Protection Act/UDAAP provisions."]},"sort":[17.808353,"20859625"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"20162775","_score":17.417637,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"I am submitting this new complaint against SoFi Bank. They are not taking my complaint seriously and provide ambiguous replies. They acknowledge issuing a stop payment but ignore the changing merchant identity to bypass. They note credits were issued from same merchants for smallest amounts, not justifying how all others are valid though the reversal of smaller amounts from same merchants stands. \n\nSoFis response does not resolve the issues raised in my complaint and does not address the procedural failures that led to continued unauthorized withdrawals, the creation of a substantial overdraft, and the closure of my accounts during an active CFPB investigation. The banks letter repeats prior conclusions without addressing the underlying facts, the regulatory obligations at issue, or the deficiencies in its investigation. \n\n1. SoFi did not address the continued unauthorized withdrawals after I provided timely notice My original complaint explained that : I reported unauthorized electronic transfers before many transactions posted.\n\nI requested that SoFi restrict activity to my physical card only. \nI warned that additional withdrawals were imminent due to the merchants use of rotating billing identifiers. \nXXXXoFis response does not explain : Why no preventative measures were implemented after notice.\n\nWhy SoFi relied on a stop payment mechanism that is ineffective against rotating merchant descriptors.\n\nWhy SoFi allowed the same merchant ecosystem to continue debiting the account after disputes were filed.\n\nRegulation E requires a financial institution to prevent further unauthorized transfers once the consumer provides notice. SoFis response does not address this obligation.\n\n2. SoFi does not address the overdraft created by its own handling of the provisional credit SoFi issued a {$6000.00} provisional credit on XX/XX/XXXX. Instead of securing the account, SoFi allowed the same merchants to withdraw those provisional funds using newly altered identifiers. When SoFi later revoked the provisional credit, the account reflected an overdraft of approximately {$6000.00}. \nThis overdraft : Was not caused by new spending, Was not caused by consumer action, And arose solely from SoFis failure to prevent continued debits during an active dispute. \nSoFis letter does not address this sequence of events or explain how the resulting overdraft could be attributed to me.\n\n3. SoFi claims the transactions were authorized but provides no evidence SoFi states that its decisions were based on an analysis confirming the transactions were authorized. However, the bank does not provide : Any authentication data, Any merchant provided evidence, Any explanation of how authorization was determined, Or any details about the coordination it claims occurred with merchants and financial institutions. \nA bare assertion of authorization does not satisfy the requirement for a reasonable investigation under Regulation XXXX. \n\n4. The merchant information is ambiguous and inconsistent with a legitimate business One of the merchants cited in SoFis denial, XXXX XXXX, lists an address associated with a virtual mailbox service, not a physical business location. This is consistent with high risk digital merchants and fraud linked operations that obscure their identity. \nThis raises several concerns : A merchant using a virtual mailbox can not be reliably verified. \nSoFi does not explain how it confirmed authorization when the merchants identity is ambiguous.\n\nSoFi does not explain how it conducted coordination with a merchant that does not appear to operate from a legitimate physical location. \nA reasonable investigation requires verification of the merchants identity. SoFis response does not address this issue.\n\n5. SoFi does not address the structural issue of rotating merchant identifiers My complaint explained that the merchants used constantly changing billing descriptors, which allowed them to bypass SoFis stop payment measures. This pattern was repeatedly communicated to SoFi.\n\nSoFis response does not acknowledge : The existence of rotating identifiers, The limitations of its stop payment system, Or the banks responsibility to implement alternative protections once notified. \nThis omission is significant because the rotating identifiers were the mechanism that allowed continued unauthorized withdrawals. \n\n6. SoFis explanation for closing my account is unsupported and ignores the timing SoFi closed my accounts on XX/XX/XXXX, while my CFPB complaint was still active. The bank cites a generic clause from its Deposit Account Agreement but does not : Identify which specific provision I allegedly violated, Explain how the supposed violation occurred, Address the fact that the overdraft was created by disputed transactions, Or explain why the account was closed during an active regulatory review. \nClosing the account under these circumstances compounded the harm and deprived me of access to banking services while the dispute remained unresolved. \n\n7. SoFis response contains factual inconsistencies and omissions Examples include : SoFi claims denial documents were sent on XX/XX/XXXX, which is nearly a year after the events in question and appears to be a clerical error. \nSoFi references a stop payment request on XX/XX/XXXX but does not address my earlier warnings or the ineffectiveness of stop payment against rotating identifiers. \nSoFi does not address the lack of transparency regarding its alleged coordination with merchants.\n\nThese inconsistencies further call into question the completeness of the banks investigation.\n\nConclusion SoFis response does not resolve my complaint because it : Fails to address the continued unauthorized withdrawals after notice, Does not explain the overdraft created by its own handling of the provisional credit, Provides no evidence supporting its claim that the transactions were authorized, Does not address the questionable legitimacy of the merchants involved, Ignores the structural issue of rotating billing identifiers, And does not justify closing my account during an active CFPB investigation. \nI respectfully request continued CFPB review to determine whether SoFi complied with Regulation E and whether its handling of my disputes, provisional credit, and account closure deprived me of the protections afforded to consumers reporting unauthorized electronic transfers. \n\nSigned, XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2026-03-11T13:28:20.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"711XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"20162775","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"SOFI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.","date_received":"2026-03-11T13:17:42.000Z","state":"LA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Funds not handled or disbursed as instructed"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This overdraft : Was not caused by new spending, Was not caused by consumer action, And arose solely from SoFis failure to prevent continued <em>debits</em> during an active dispute. \nSoFis letter does not address this sequence of events or explain how the resulting overdraft could be attributed to me.\n\n3. SoFi claims the transactions <em>were</em> <em>authorized</em> but provides no evidence SoFi states that its decisions <em>were</em> based on an analysis confirming the transactions <em>were</em> <em>authorized</em>."]},"sort":[17.417637,"20162775"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":5,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":5}]}},"product":{"doc_count":5,"product":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Checking or savings account","doc_count":5,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Checking account","doc_count":5}]}}]}},"issue":{"doc_count":5,"issue":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Managing an account","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Funds not handled or disbursed as instructed","doc_count":1},{"key":"Problem using a debit or ATM card","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a lender or other company charging your account","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Transaction was not authorized","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Problem caused by your funds being low","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Overdrafts and overdraft fees","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"timely":{"doc_count":5,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":5}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":5,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":4},{"key":"Closed with monetary relief","doc_count":1}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":5,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":5}]}},"company":{"doc_count":5,"company":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","doc_count":1},{"key":"KEYCORP","doc_count":1},{"key":"SOFI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","doc_count":1}]}},"state":{"doc_count":5,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"CA","doc_count":1},{"key":"GA","doc_count":1},{"key":"LA","doc_count":1},{"key":"NC","doc_count":1},{"key":"NY","doc_count":1}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":5,"company_public_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","doc_count":2}]}},"tags":{"doc_count":5,"tags":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}}},"_meta":{"license":"CC0","last_updated":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","last_indexed":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","total_record_count":16441818,"is_data_stale":false,"has_data_issue":false,"break_points":{}}}