Consumer complaint received 2024-06-02
Product: Prepaid card — Government benefit card
Issue: Unexpected or other fees — 
Company: BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION (MD)

Subject : Formal Complaint Against Bank of America for Violations of EFTA and Mishandling of XXXX XXXX XXXX Benefits Dear Consumer Financial Protections Bureau, I am writing to file a formal complaint against Bank of America regarding its continued violations of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ) and its mishandling of XXXX XXXX XXXX benefits programs. This complaint builds upon the enforcement action issued on XX/XX/XXXX, where the Bank of America was cited for violating several federal statutes related to the EFTA. 

Background On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX of XXXX, I reported transactions to the Bank of America that I believed were errors. Consequently, my account was frozen from XX/XX/XXXX, to XX/XX/XXXX, during which I did not have access to the funds held in this account. 

Throughout this period, I was issued XXXX prepaid debit cards due to security issues. It became evident that Bank of America had implemented substandard security features, making these cards susceptible to being copied and misused. When I initially applied and was approved for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX benefits through the Maryland Department of Labor, I never received the first card issued to me. At the time, I attributed this to operational disruptions caused by the pandemic. However, it has since come to light ( between XXXX and XXXX ) that other consumers have experienced similar issues, specifically with XXXX benefits and Bank of America. 

I have attached complaint numbers related to my experiences with the Bank of America, focusing on the handling of claims I submitted for review. These include : XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX. While these issues have been addressed in previous complaints, I will not delve into them further here. 

Specific Complaint For this specific complaint, I assert that Bank of America continues to violate EFTA regulations, thereby undermining the consumer protections guaranteed by the Act. On XX/XX/XXXX and XXXX, I reported suspicious activity on my account, only to discover that a majority of the transactions were omitted from the claims. During multiple conversations with Bank of America representatives, it was confirmed that whenever I file claims due to suspected fraudulent activity, the bank must replace and close the card in use. 

After the freeze on my card was lifted on XX/XX/XXXX, I contacted Bank of America on XX/XX/XXXX, to inquire whether a new card would be issued. The bank informed me that no new card would be sent and that I could continue using the existing card. Following further suspected fraudulent activity, I requested a new card on XX/XX/XXXX, which resulted in the issuance of a card ending in XXXX. 

Legal Precedent and Regulatory Context There is a similar case currently being heard in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Bank of America N.A., where the CFPB is acting as an amicus to support the appellant, XXXX XXXX. My intention is to file based on the actions taken by Bank of America after my claims were submitted, as these actions resemble collective punishment against individuals who file error claims. Additionally, there is a discernible pattern of discriminatory treatment in handling these claims based on race. My claims have been closed immediately without thorough investigation, suggesting that Bank of America operates under the mistaken belief that these prepaid cards are not covered under EFTA. 

The judges overseeing the aforementioned case have affirmed that these types of cards are indeed covered by EFTA and have provided a legal opinion to remand the case for further litigation. This demonstrates a poor attempt by Bank of America to circumvent established legal precedent. The bank 's actions are appalling and disgraceful. As a financial institution, Bank of America is supposed to serve its customers ; it has failed to do so in this instance, and I believe the bank should face significant penalties, including the potential loss of its ability to operate in this capacity.