Consumer complaint received 2026-05-29 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: WELLS FARGO & COMPANY
State: PA

Complaint narrative:
I am filing this complaint against Wells Fargo Bank for failure to properly investigate and resolve a documented merchant billing dispute over four chargeback cycles spanning four months. THE UNDERLYING TRANSACTION : On XX/XX/year> at XXXX XXXX, I created an on-demand XXXX XXXX with the merchant XXXX XXXX. I configured the deployment with their advertised " scale-to-zero '' feature set to a 15-minute idle window a feature their own documentation states will automatically stop billing when the deployment is unused. I had 3-6 brief conversations with the model in the first 26 hours. THE FAILURE : On XX/XX/year> at XXXX XXXX, XXXX suspended my account for exceeding a spend limit. This locked me out of their dashboard. Despite the suspension, the XXXX XXXX continued to run and bill continuously for the next 4 days and 17 hours. I had no way to access the dashboard to stop it. On XX/XX/year>, I discovered a {$240.00} charge on my bank statement. Using the XXXX REST API, I confirmed the deployment was still in state READY with 1 active XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX replica. I manually deleted the deployment via the API at XX/XX/year> XXXX UTC. Total deployment runtime : approximately 139 hours. Total billed : {$240.00}. THE ADVERTISED PRICE : XXXX publicly advertised XXXX XXXX at {$2.00} per hour at the time. Their invoice XXXX confirms they billed me at exactly that rate. The math : $ XXXX XXXX hours billed = {$240.00}. But my actual usage was confined to the first 26 hours ( ~ {$75.00} in legitimate charges ). The remaining 59 hours of billing ( ~ {$170.00} ) accrued during the suspension period when I had no ability to control the resource. WELLS FARGO 'S HANDLING THE FOUR CYCLES : - Cycle 1 : I disputed the {$240.00} charge. Wells Fargo refunded me. XXXX contested. Wells Fargo returned the money to XXXX. - After cycle 1, XXXX charged an additional {$130.00} bringing the total disputed amount to {$370.00}. - Cycles 2, 3, and 4 followed the same pattern. Each time, Wells Fargo has refunded then reversed. The bank has continued to side with XXXX despite evidence I have repeatedly submitted. EVIDENCE WELLS FARGO ALREADY HAS : On XX/XX/year> at XXXX XXXX, I sent Wells Fargo 's dispute department ( XXXX ) an email with 5 attachments totaling approximately 4 MB, including : 1. Screenshots of XXXX ' public pricing page at the time, explicitly showing XXXX XXXX at $ XXXXhour 2. The XXXX invoice confirming the $ XXXXhour rate 3. Screenshots of XXXX ' " Account Suspended '' email 4. API response logs showing the deployment was state : READY with 1 active replica more than 5 days after suspension 5. A detailed dispute letter with the full timeline NEW EVIDENCE I HAVE SINCE GATHERED : Fireworks AI has subsequently REMOVED XXXX pricing from their public pricing page. As of XXXX, their current pricing page lists only XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX XXXX. Two independent third-party pricing trackers ( XXXX and XXXX ) also confirm XXXX is not currently a publicly-priced XXXX product. This is evidence of a material change to the merchant 's public pricing after the dispute began. However, XXXX ' current documentation at XXXX STILL states verbatim : " By default, deployments scale to zero if unused for 1 hour. '' That advertised behavior did not function for my deployment. THE CHARGEBACK CODES THAT APPLY : XXXX XXXX / XXXX XXXX ( Services Not As Described the scale-to-zero feature failed ). XXXX XXXX/ XXXX XXXX ( Unauthorized Transaction charges accruing during the suspension period when I had no ability to stop the resource ). Wells Fargo has not substantively evaluated the dispute under either code. WHAT I AM ASKING THE CFPB TO REQUIRE : That Wells Fargo reopen the dispute case, conduct a substantive review of the evidence I submitted on XX/XX/year>, and honor the chargeback for the full {$370.00} or at minimum the approximately {$170.00} corresponding to the post-suspension period that is clearly unauthorized. I am also requesting Wells Fargo provide a written statement explaining what specific evidence XXXX has provided in their rebuttals, which I am entitled to see under federal Fair Credit Billing Act provisions ( Reg Z 1026.13 ). This dispute has caused real financial hardship. The {$240.00} was withdrawn from my account at a time when I was managing tight household finances. The pattern of refund-then-reversal four times over four months represents a failure of the bank 's dispute investigation process, not a legitimate denial of the underlying claim.

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 monetary relief