Product: Credit card

I'm writing to you to express my frustration with Chase 's fraud department and its unacceptable handling of fraud on my credit card. Because I have spent the last three months attempting to resolve this issue with Chase, and because Chase has not handled this matter appropriately, I am sending this message to both the CFPB and the New York State AG. 

Between XX/XX/XXXX and today, I have detailed the case of fraud on my card to representatives from both the Fraud Department and executive office. 

- From XX/XX/2023 through XX/XX/2023 I traveled to XXXX. 
- On XX/XX/XXXX, I flew from XXXX XXXX to XXXX XXXX  XXXX. I flew back to XXXX XXXX from XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. 
- On XX/XX/XXXX a vendor titled " XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX made a charge of {$590.00} using my Chase card information. This is the fraudulent charge in question. 
- Once I noticed this charge on my account several days later, I immediately notified Chase, who refunded and closed my account on XX/XX/XXXX. 
- Chase recharged the {$590.00} to my account on XX/XX/XXXX, claiming that I was liable for the charge because I " received benefit from this transaction ''. 

Over the course of the last three months, I have appealed Chase 's finding several times and spoken with several members from Chase 's executive office, including a woman named XXXX with whom I spoke at great length. During those recorded conversations, XXXX confirmed with me that : - The transaction took place in XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX using the cards Chip technology. 
- Because I both retained my physical card, and used it for another transaction after XX/XX/XXXX, that the charge is NOT deemed to be fraudulent. 
- It is Chase 's widespread policy to deny any fraudulent claims that involve chip technology because the fraud department believes EMV Chip technology is foolproof. 
- If I could prove that I both retained my physical card, and was not in the city where the fraudulent charge occurred, the fraud department could accept my claim. 

I followed the instructions given to me by XXXX and sent the fraud department another appeal that included my flight itinerary and hotel reservation. Both of these documents show that I was in XXXX XXXX  XXXX on the day that the fraudulent charge was made in XXXX XXXX. They completely ignored the documentation I provided and, once again, denied my claim, stating that because the chip was used, and because I maintained possession of the card, the charge could not be fraudulent. 

From the start, Chase 's handling of this matter has been confused and irrational. First they denied my claim because they said I " received benefit from the transaction ''. Then they changed their reasoning and said they're denying the claim because I retained my physical card, and that EMV chip technology can't be hacked. They also said, however, that if I could prove I was in another city, then they'd accept the appeal. First, I never claimed that I lost possession of the card, but that the card was compromised. Second, if it were truly the case that a chip card could not be hacked, then where I was on the date of the disputed transaction would be irrelevant. Third, and I shouldn't have to point this out to so called " experts '' in a fraud department, but if they had looked at my documents and at my bank statement with any scrutiny, they would have noticed that I used my credit card in XXXX on the same day as the fraudulent charge was made in XXXX XXXX. Obviously I can not be in two cities at once. And the fact that the bank statement shows that two separate purchases were made in two different cities on the same day, should be enough to raise a red flag. 
It goes without saying that this entire matter has been exceedingly frustrating. Chase 's apparent position that a chip card can not be hacked is an opinion that can easily be contradicted by publicly-available information. This position is both factually baseless and draconian. If it is indeed a de facto policy to deny all fraud claims involving chip technology, then Chase 's practices on display here not only affect me, but must be negatively impacting countless other consumers who rely on Chase to do their due diligence in these matters- a practice that is highly suspect and deeply troubling.

As I said, I would have hoped that Chase had better-handled this situation, and it's regretful that I've been forced to contact governmental authorities. 

I am available if you would like to discuss.