Consumer complaint received 2026-03-25 00:00:00
Product: Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service — Domestic (US) money transfer
Issue: Other transaction problem — 
Company: UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
Resubmitting this as it looks like you responded to the prior complaint by accident. In a response to a complaint that a prior transaction ruled as authorized ( for {$650.00} ) is actually unauthorized under regulation E as it was made by force you invited to reach out for additional questions. I am submitting an additional complaint as I was unable to reach you back despite leaving a number of messages, and your response appeared to be untrue to the point of lacking a substantive response to my complaint. My complaint is that a transaction I was forced to complete under duress and I immediately reported should be considered unauthorized as per Regulation E. In your response you state : " As you authorized and conducted the transfer, the transaction is not considered unauthorized under Regulation E, even though you allege it was influenced by a third party. '' My complaint is specifically that this is provably untrue. Regulation E includes interpretation guidance from the CFPB that describes this exact situation, where a transfer authorized and conducted under duress is in fact unauthorized under regulation E. Therefore, at minimum, your explanation is insufficient to describe why my claim was denied. To clarify why my claim was denied you would need to have a different reason as transactions under this exact circumstance ARE considered unauthorized according to Regulation E guidance in one particular circumstance : In Regulation E 1005.2 ( i ) ( Definitions ), covering the definition of unauthorized, they provide official interpretation guidance : https : XXXX # XXXX Exactly quoting from this page from regulation E guidance : " Forced initiation. An EFT at an ATM is an unauthorized transfer if the consumer has been induced by force to initiate the transfer. '' In this case, the electronic funds transfer at an ATM was " authorized '' by the user in the exact situation you describe here that I did, but the CFPB indicates the transaction is " unauthorized '' for the purposes of definition in Regulation E because it was made under duress ( ie forced ), as in my circumstance. USAA has not attempted to describe ( or even address ) how this situation is meaningfully different from my situation, which differs solely by the type of EFT and in no other respect. Note well the actual text of Regulation E treats all types of EFT the same so it would be illogical to treat these situations differently in light of this guidance. If USAA does want to treat the situations differently, the explanation for why is the response Im looking for. I understand the guidance may be new, but I shouldnt be having to pull out hairs here just to get a response. If USAA disagrees with the CFPBs guidance please clearly state so that way this can at least be resolved.

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