Consumer complaint received 2022-04-23
Company: UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION
State: NM
Product: Checking or savings account
Sub-product: Checking account
Issue: Problem with a lender or other company charging your account
Sub-issue: Transaction was not authorized

Complaint:
I am a military member with 27 years of service and have had all of my checking, savings, loans, credit cards and insurance with USAA for 20 years. Recently, fraudsters accessed my checking account and stole {$6000.00} out of my account. This was done first by the fraudsters accessing my account and then calling me from a USAA number, spoofing both the USAA phone number and my IP address apparently. They represented that they were from the USA fraud department, and having received calls from USAA alerting me to fraudulent charges before, I logged into my account to see that two {$2500.00} cashiers checks and other fees that I didn't request were in my checking account. At this point, the person I believed to be the USAA rep told me that he would work to reverse the fraudulent charges and sent me a 6 digit pin to access my account. I read the pin back. When I was put on hold, the USAA official music played, the employee gave me his ID and employee number and based on other experiences with real USAA reps who have asked me for my phone password and pin, I believed I was dealing with USAA. I contacted USAA immediately, yet they still let the fraudsters cash the two {$2500.00} checks, take another {$1000.00} from my account without refunding, and are now telling me that it was my fault I read the six digit pin back and they don't for scams. 

This position is direct violation of Regulation E. The official interpretation of Regulation E provides the contrary answeran unauthorized EFT10 includes any transfer initiated by a person who obtained an access device through fraud, robbery, or force. 

The CPFB 's recent guidance affirms and clarifies this approach, noting that if a consumer is fraudulently induced into sharing account access with a third party, the subsequent transfer is an unauthorized EFT. This includes commonplace examples of digital fraud, including instances where a consumer receives a call from someone pretending to be a representative from the consumer 's financial institution, as well as phishing or other methods to gain access to a consumer 's computer and obtain such information. 

The CFPB made clear that a consumer is entitled to receive the liability protections of Regulation E, even if that consumer acted negligently. CFPB also made clear that the official interpretation of Regulation E expressly provides that negligence by a consumer can not be used as the basis for imposing greater liability than is permissible under Regulation E. The interpretation notes that even consumer behavior that constitutes negligence under state law, including writing the PIN on a debit card or on a piece of paper kept with the card, does not affect the consumer 's liability for unauthorized EFTs. 

USAA is clearly in violation of regulation E, and need to reverse the fraudulent transactions, especially since it was their negligence after being notified of the checks being fraudulent sent to the scammers that they allowed them to be put through to my bank account.

Company public response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation