Product: Credit card

Hi, I have XXXX credit cards with this " ONLINE BANK. '' That specializes in " online banking ''. My wife is an authorized user and I am enrolled in paperless billing. After I was in an XXXX XXXX XXXX and in a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, she complained that she had no clue how to pay our bills as I had been handling the bill payments up to that point. With paperless billing, there were no notifications and she couldn't make online payments or check statements. To make matters worse, my phone ( the XXXX factor authentication ) was destroyed in the accident. After I recovered she has periodically asked me to help her set up her own logins for various accounts so she could view statements, check for fraudulent charges and make payments if necessary. I have tried several times over the years that followed to set he up her own login credentials with our cards. For some reason I always started with chase, and give up after hours of research after discovering that Chase DOES NOT ALLOW THIS unless you are in a joint account. Even authorized users can not be granted access. I understand not giving autherized users this access by default, but not even being able to grant them that access is beyond absurd! Moreover, according to their website, there is no way to retroactively add a joint account user, even for a spouse. Again beyond absurd! Apparently they can accept a joint account holder at application, but not after the fact. 

This time I decided to call Chase and get this fixed once and for all. The first XXXX I talked too had the bright idea that he would help me " disable two-factor authentication '' on my account. Even suggesting that as a solution should get them a major XXXX XXXX dollar regulatory violation fine. If they are actually doing this, then it should be a XXXX  XXXX dollar fine. To make matter 's worse his " supervisor '' whom I also talked to vigorously defended this absurd security violation, so this is clearly not an isolated incident. I even pointed out that sharing logins like this is a major security concern, that almost any institution strictly forbids, he then said they don't encourage the practice, despite him having just variously encouraging it. 

It was also suggested I add my wife as a joint account holder ( I actually had to make that suggestion, if it was a normal option, they should have opened with that, not the security violations ). They seemed ok with doing that, but they required to me to visit a physical branch location. The nearest branch is over an hour away several counties over. I said that wouldn't be possible, since the nearest branch is over an hour away ( XXXX hour round trip to do online banking???? ). Literally all they needed to do was provide me with even a paper form my wife and I could fill out and sign and possibly notarize and mail in. But apparently they can't do this online, over the phone or even by mail. 

I then objected on the grounds that it was an XXXX violation. I suffer from a XXXX XXXX XXXX after my XXXXt called XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, the same one that new XXXX documentary is about. Given that this was now an XXXX request for a routine banking procedure, adding a joint account holder, that they should have already had a process in place for, but it still required submitting an accessibility request that will take another one or two days to process because they need to look into the " feasibility '' of providing XXXX access for a routine banking form ( hello XXXXXXXX XXXX, ever heard of secure email or snail mail? ) This of course raises all sorts of concerns if they don't know how to provide a simple routine banking form to a customer via secure email ). 

So there are security violations for their lack of respect for two factor authentication. Their bank is falsely advertising themselves as a online bank, since they can't do basic routine online banking tasks like adding a joint account holder or providing authorized users online access. There is the a huge problem in their ability collect payments from customer 's who are in commas, because they refuse to granted authorized users access to online statements and bill pay. However, I am sure that is by design, after all they need to collect those late fees and interest payments on late payments. And while I know it is outside the CFPB 's jurisdiction, their XXXX compliance is lacking, as they should already have XXXX compliance in place for all routine banking procedures. It shouldn't require a feasibility study. Basic access is required to already be in place, by law.