Consumer complaint received 2026-04-02 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Problem with a lender or other company charging your account — Transaction was not authorized
Company: NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
I am filing this complaint regarding Navy Federal Credit Unions handling of my dispute involving over XXXX transactions totaling approximately {$34000.00} with XXXX. I am disputing these charges as unauthorized electronic fund transfers under Regulation E. I did not knowingly authorize these transactions. Although the transactions were processed through XXXX XXXX authentication of a device ( Face ID, Touch ID, or passcode ) does not establish that I knowingly and intentionally approved each individual transaction. My account records show a clear and abnormal transaction pattern, including hundreds of transactions to the same merchant, repeated identical amounts ( {$99.00}, {$49.00}, {$19.00}, {$4.00} ), and numerous charges occurring in rapid succession within minutes or hours. This pattern is inconsistent with normal consumer behavior and does not reflect intentional authorization of each individual charge. Instead, it indicates a continuous transaction flow without meaningful opportunity to review or consent to each purchase. I clearly informed the bank that I was not disputing duplicate transactions, but rather disputing that these transactions were unauthorized. Despite this, Navy Federal Credit Union denied my claim stating only that no duplicate transaction occurred, which does not address the required standard under Regulation E, which is whether the transactions were authorized. The merchant has confirmed that all transactions were processed through XXXX XXXX and relies solely on device authentication as proof of authorization. The merchant has not provided any evidence that I personally reviewed or knowingly approved each transaction. The merchant also acknowledged that multiple purchases can occur rapidly during active gameplay, further supporting that these transactions were part of a continuous process rather than separate, intentional authorizations. Additionally, the bank has not provided any evidence that I personally authorized these transactions, relied solely on the successful processing of the transactions, and directed me to resolve the issue with the merchant, which does not satisfy its obligations under Regulation E. The bank has also not explained why hundreds of repetitive transactions were not flagged as suspicious activity. I made multiple good-faith attempts to provide the requested documentation. I contacted the bank by phone on XXXX separate occasions to report that I was unable to upload documents due to system errors and access denied messages. During my first call, I was instructed to submit documents through the general secure messaging system, which I did. During my second call, a representative initiated a second review, asked additional questions, and submitted a ticket regarding the upload issue. Despite these efforts and following their instructions, I continued to experience access issues and was unable to upload documents through the system. I submitted documentation through secure messaging in good faith ; however, my claim was still denied for failure to provide documentation, indicating that my evidence was not fully reviewed. I further responded to the banks request for additional information on XX/XX/XXXX, providing detailed explanations and documentation. However, I received a response stating the matter had already been addressed, with no indication that my newly submitted information was reviewed. Additionally, after the provisional credit was removed, my account became overdrawn, causing immediate financial hardship while this dispute was still under review. I also have concerns regarding whether XXXX is authorized to operate in California, which raises additional questions about the legitimacy of these transactions. I am requesting a full reinvestigation under Regulation E, reimbursement of unauthorized transactions, reinstatement of the provisional credit, reversal of any overdraft fees, and all documentation and evidence used in the determination of my claim. I have attached supporting documentation, including transaction history, correspondence with the merchant, and prior dispute communications.

Company public response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
Company response to consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief