Consumer complaint received 2026-06-11 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: U.S. BANCORP
State: AR

Complaint narrative:
I am submitting a new complaint regarding the banks handling of my unauthorized transaction claim because the banks prior response did not comply with RegulationE. This is not a duplicate complaint. This complaint concerns the banks procedural noncompliance, unsupported factual assertions, and failure to provide the documentation required under XXXX XXXX XXXX. In its denial letter, the bank stated that I confirmed the transactions via XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX and confirmed again by phone on XX/XX/XXXX, and that the transactions were authorized based on transaction and account history, location, and pattern of use. These are factual assertions that require supporting evidence. However, the bank did not provide the documentation required under RegulationE to support these claims. Specifically, the bank did not provide : SMS logs showing the alleged confirmation The actual call recording for the alleged XX/XX/XXXX call ( only a transcript was provided ) Authentication logs ( IP address, device, location, login data ) Internal investigation notes Merchant documentation Any evidence demonstrating that I actually authorized the transactions The bank did provide screenshots that appear to contain internal notes from a call in which they claim I confirmed the transactions, as well as a transcript of a call they assert reflects my confirmation. However, internal notes and a transcript are not the underlying evidence required to substantiate such a claim. Without the original call recording or authentication data, I can not verify the accuracy of the banks interpretation or meaningfully challenge its conclusion. Without access to the actual evidence, I can not meaningfully understand, evaluate, or appeal the banks determination. This is similar to being asked to respond to a decision in a legal proceeding without being given the evidence used to reach that decision. RegulationE requires the bank to provide copies of the documents it relied upon, and I am simply requesting the information necessary to review and respond to their findings. The only other documentation the bank provided was : ( 1 ) a list of transactions, which is not evidence of authorization, and ( 2 ) an outsourced Visa investigation packet for a single {$330.00} transaction. The XXXX packet does not satisfy the banks independent obligations under RegulationE and does not address the remaining disputed transactions. I also attempted to file a police report regarding the unauthorized transactions, but was informed that I could not do so because the merchant is based in XXXX XXXX and therefore outside the jurisdiction of local law enforcement. Although a police report is not required under RegulationE, I still made a goodfaith effort to obtain one. I am including this detail so the CFPB is aware that I attempted to provide every form of documentation reasonably available to me. In addition, I made a goodfaith effort to stabilize the account by moving my savings to cover approximately half of the overdraft created by the unauthorized transactions. I did this to prevent further fees and demonstrate that I was not attempting to avoid responsibility for the account while the dispute was pending. This situation has caused significant and ongoing stress, largely because I have been unable to obtain the evidence necessary to understand or respond to the banks determination. I have made every goodfaith effort to resolve the matter, but the lack of transparency has made it difficult to move forward. Finally, I am concerned that the bank issued provisional credit before completing its investigation. Under RegulationE, provisional credit is intended to protect consumers during an investigationnot to serve as a basis for later denying a claim without providing the required evidence. The sequence of events raises questions about whether the investigation was completed in a reasonable and compliant manner.

Company public response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation