Consumer complaint received 2026-01-21 00:00:00
Product: Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service — Mobile or digital wallet
Issue: Fraud or scam — 
Company: First Technology Federal Credit Union
State: WA

Complaint narrative:
On XX/XX/year>, I sent a XXXX XXXX transfer of {$230.00} from my XXXX XXXX account ( ending XXXX ) for a service that was promised but never provided. I later determined the transaction appears to have been a scam ( services never delivered ; no refund ). I promptly disputed the transaction with XXXX XXXX and requested an investigation and supporting records. 

XXXX XXXX closed my dispute as " no error occurred '' and refused to re-open it. XXXX XXXX  explanation is that ( 1 ) they attempted to request a " good-faith return '' through XXXX to the receiving institution ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and the receiving institution declined ; ( 2 ) under " XXXX rules, '' they can not compel a return ; ( 3 ) XXXX has XXXX no purchase protection '' and works like cash/wire once funds are sent ; and ( 4 ) XXXX XXXX  concluded the transfer was " authorized '' and not due to an unauthorized transfer, system failure, or other " error ''. 

XXXX XXXX position conflates recoverability with error-resolution compliance. Under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ) and Regulation E, when a consumer reports a potential error, the institution must investigate, determine whether an error occurred, and report the results to the consumer within required timelines. 

1. XXXX XXXX described " investigation '' is primarily a recovery attempt via XXXX. Whether the recipient bank will voluntarily return funds does not determine whether an " error '' occurred under federal law. EFTA requires an investigation and a determination, not merely a clawback request.

2. The banks conclusion that the transaction was " authorized '' is conclusory and unsupported. Regulation E defines " error '' to include an unauthorized electronic fund transfer. XXXX XXXX insists it reviewed evidence and determined the transfer was authorized, but it has not provided the factual basis that supports that conclusion ( e.g., authentication/authorization evidence ). Instead, XXXX XXXX relies on generalized XXXX disclaimers about " no purchase protection '' which do not satisfy the banks federal statutory duties. 

3. XXXX XXXX failed to provide " documents relied upon '' / meaningful explanation of findings. Regulation E requires a written explanation of findings when the institution determines no error occurred and, upon request, production of the documents the institution relied upon. Instead, XXXX XXXX sent me screenshots/status records indicating " delivered/no return, '' but those records do not demonstrate authorization. When I requested records supporting the " authorized '' determination, XXXX XXXX stated that " system level data, internal security logs, or proprietary fraud monitoring outputs '' may not be disclosed. This is problematic because those are the categories of records that would ordinarily be relied upon to reach an " authorized '' conclusion. If XXXX XXXX relied on those records, the bank should provide consumer-reportable versions or an adequate explanation of the evidence supporting its determination, rather than refusing disclosure while maintaining a conclusory denial. 

4. XXXX XXXX dispute handling appears to be an unfair process that effectively denies Regulation E protections by substituting " XXXX works like cash '' messaging for the required investigation and substantiated findings. If XXXX XXXX markets or represents consumer protections for fraudulent transfers but then denies claims with conclusory statements and without providing the basis for an authorization determination, that XXXX implicate unfair/deceptive practices under the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. 

I requested that XXXX XXXX re-open the dispute and provide a Regulation E-compliant investigation and documentation, including : XXXX. Evidence supporting its " authorized '' conclusion ( channel used, timestamps, session IDs, device identifiers, IP/geo indicators, XXXX challenges/results XXXX and any anomalous access/risk flags ) XXXX. Recipient token/enrollment history and the basis for " token not restricted '' findings referenced by XXXX records XXXX XXXX XXXX case notes and the specific steps taken in the investigation beyond the XXXX return request XXXX. A substantive written explanation of findings consistent with Regulation XXXX First Tech refused to re-open and responded that the Regulation XXXX process is " complete, '' relying largely on XXXX lack of purchase protection and stating some internal security documentation will not be disclosed. 

Harm to me : XXXX. Financial loss of {$230.00} XXXX. Significant time and administrative burden spent pursuing basic evidence and a legally compliant error-resolution process XXXX. Ongoing inability to validate the banks " authorized '' conclusion due to lack of supporting evidence and refusal to provide consumer-reportable documentation

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