Consumer complaint received 2026-07-02 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: ALLY FINANCIAL INC.
State: NJ

Complaint narrative:
b'REGULATION E COMPLAINT: MATERIAL FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE, DISREGARD OF CONSUMER FRAUD RESPONSES, AND LACK OF REASONABLE DISCLOSURE NOTICEI am filing an expedited complaint against Ally Bank for a severe violation of Federal Regulation E (12 CFR 1005.11). Ally Bank has failed to conduct a reasonable, good-faith investigation, wrongfully reversed my provisional credit, and falsely asserted that I have an "established relationship" with a fraudulent foreign merchant entity. Furthermore, Ally Bank willfully disregarded its own fraud mitigation protocols, failed to provide timely notice of its decision, and left my account vulnerable to ongoing risk.\n1. REJECTION OF AUTOMATED RELATIONSHIP CLAIM & SYSTEM IDENTIFIERSThe unauthorized charge is labeled: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Ally Banks automated system improperly closed this case simply because the clearing text contained the keyword "XXXX." I have absolutely zero commercial history, foot traffic, or business relationship with an individual or entity named "XXXX" in XXXX XXXX XXXX. I am an American resident with no commercial or physical footprint in XXXX. While this rogue charge was pushed through our XXXX digital ledger via an Account Takeover (ATO), an exhaustive audit of our history spanning years proves there has never been a single similar transaction or interaction with this entity, nor any transaction in non-US currency.Public banking data confirms that the numeric sequence XXXX is a generalized global network routing token for XXXX XXXX International card-testing and account-takeover rings systematically force fraudulent drainage using this exact string appended to shell names (e.g., XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX). It cannot be used to establish a unique customer relationship.\n2. DEFIANT DISREGARD OF SIMULTANEOUS CONSUMER FRAUD RESPONSECrucially, Ally Banks own real-time fraud monitoring systems flagged this exact transaction as a threat at the moment it occurred on XXXX XXXX XXXX. Ally Bank transmitted an official SMS fraud notification directly to both my mobile device and the joint account holder\'s mobile device. We each responded immediately and explicitly via SMS confirming that the transaction was UNAUTHORIZED. Despite possessing contemporaneous, direct confirmation from the consumers that the credentials were compromised, Ally Bank completely disregarded our fraud alert responses, overrode their own security protocol, and processed a wrongful denial.\n3. LACK OF NOTICE AND WRONGFUL CREDITING PROCEDURESAlly Bank generated an internal letter on XXXX XXXX XXXX claiming the dispute investigation was completed, yet failed to send any digital alert (email/SMS) notifying us. Furthermore, as of today, XXXX XXXX XXXX this notice has still not been received via US Mail. On XXXX XXXX XXXX Ally abruptly reversed the provisional credit, labeling the line item generically as "Withdrawal" with no description, leading us to believe a new, active security breach was occurring. When we called to clarify, frontline customer service disconnected our call after a 30-minute hold.\n4. EXHAUSTION OF INTERMEDIARY REMEDIES We have fully exhausted internal dispute remedies with XXXX (Dispute ID: XXXX which has closed the matter after two automated denials. A third-party digital wallet provider\'s internal corporate terms do not overrule federal law. Under Regulation E, my banking institution holds primary liability for unauthorized electronic fund transfers from my consumer asset account. Ally Bank cannot contract out or delegate its Regulation E compliance duties to XXXX\'s internal dispute desk.\n\nCHRONOLOGICAL EVIDENCE TIMELINE & SYSTEM PROTOCOL BREAKDOWN\XXXX An unauthorized transaction of XXXX XXXX is processed against my Ally Bank checking account via the joint account holders debit card under the foreign merchant billing string: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXSimultaneous]: Ally Banks automated fraud system flags the transaction as highly suspicious and transmits an official SMS fraud notification to both account holders\' mobile devices.\XXXX [Immediate Consumer Rejection]: We each immediately replied directly to Ally Banks automated SMS alert stating explicitly that neither account holder attempted or authorized the transaction. (See Exhibit A: SMS ScreenshotsXXXX A formal Federal Regulation E fraud dispute is initiated with Ally Bank (Case #XXXX Acting in good faith to mitigate the account takeover (ATO), the joint account holder contacts XXXX via the "XXXX XXXX" system to log an Unauthorized Activity dispute. (See Exhibit B: XXXX XXXX: Ally Bank issues a "Third Party First Contact Letter" and prematurely closes the initial claim before receiving any merchant data. (See Exhibit C: Ally Correspondence)\nXXXX The account holder discovers that the automated "XXXX XXXX" failed to properly record the initial fraud report. A formal Unauthorized Activity Report is successfully submitted directly inside the XXXX Resolution Center (ID: XXXX XXXX\'s automated filter issues a boilerplate first denial of the case.\XXXX: The account owner immediately files a second dispute/appeal within XXXX. The appeal explicitly notes that a historical lookback proves zero past transactions with "XXXX XXXX" and zero historical transactions in any currency other than XXXX XXXX XXXX Having received no updates from XXXX, the primary account holder transmits an Ally Bank Secure Message advising that XXXX has failed to resolve the fraud. The message includes XXXX\'s first denial and an official ledger export spanning XXXX through XXXX proving the total absence of an "established relationship" with this German merchant text string. (See Exhibit C: Ally Correspondence)\XXXX Ally Bank issues a Provisional Credit of XXXX under "Prov Credit Dispute XXXX" (reflecting the baseline XXXX fraud amount plus interest/fee adjustments).\nXXXX Ally Bank issues a secondary confirmation letter stating they are actively researching the dispute under Dispute NumberXXXX XXXX XXXX issues its second and final automated denial, officially exhausting all internal intermediary remedies. (See Exhibit B: XXXX Denials)XXXX: Ally Bank generates a formal letter titled "RE: Dispute Investigation Completed". Ally uploads this to the online portal with zero digital notification (email or SMS) to the account holders. Furthermore, as of today, XXXX XXXX XXXX this notice has still not been received via XXXX XXXX Ally Bank abruptly reverses the provisional credit. The ledger entry is labeled generically as "Withdrawal" with no description, causing us to believe a new, active hack is occurring due to the complete lack of physical or digital notice.\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX: I place a phone call to Ally Bank customer service. After a 30-minute hold, an Ally representative abruptly disconnects the call during the identity authentication process.XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX I call Ally Bank a second time. Representative Serdeesh advises that the generic "Withdrawal" was the reversal of provisional credit dispute XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX I issue a formal verbal demand under 12 CFR 1005.11(d)(2) for a complete copy of all documentation, data, and merchant rebuttal evidence Ally relied upon to claim an "established relationship." Ally opens documentation request Case #XXXX (7-10 day turn time).\XXXX [Today]: This formal CFPB Complaint and written statutory Regulation E document demand are officially executed and submitted to bypass standard automated banking queues.'

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