Consumer complaint received 2026-05-05 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Managing an account — Problem using a debit or ATM card
Company: ROBINHOOD MARKETS INC.
State: IL

Complaint narrative:
This complaint concerns Robinhood Money LLC 's handling of disputed unauthorized debit card transactions, including a documented violation of the provisional credit requirement under 12 C.F.R. 1005.11 ( c ). Procedural violation missing provisional credit : On XX/XX/year>, I submitted a written rebuttal of denial decisions issued XX/XX/year> on five disputed transactions totaling {$2400.00}. On XX/XX/year>, Robinhood Support confirmed in writing that " if it isn't resolved within 10 business days, you will receive a provisional credit in the amount of your dispute. '' The 10-business-day deadline expired XX/XX/year>. No provisional credit has been issued. On XX/XX/year>, after calling Robinhood support, I received a written email from Robinhood Support agent Mark ( Case ID XXXX ) confirming the violation. XXXX wrote : " Because their review isn't complete yet even though it is beyond the 10 days time frame, they haven't issued a provisional credit at this time. '' This is a written admission that Robinhood is past the 10-business-day deadline and has not issued the credit. XXXX also stated provisional credit is conditioned on the disputes team 's review outcome which contradicts 1005.11 ( c ), under which provisional credit is required during an extended investigation, not as a discretionary outcome of one. On XX/XX/year>, Robinhood Banking sent five " Debit Card dispute received '' emails confirming receipt of new dispute filings for each of the four disputed transactions, treating my XX/XX/year> rebuttal as new dispute notices under their system. The 10-business-day investigation period under 12 C.F.R. 1005.11 ( c ) therefore ran from XX/XX/year> and expired Monday, XX/XX/year>. No provisional credit has been issued. Underlying disputes denial without addressing merits : The five disputed transactions are : XXXX ( {$1100.00}, XX/XX/year> ), XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( {$400.00} and {$500.00}, both XX/XX/year> ), and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( {$210.00} charged twice, XX/XX/year> ). Three were processed via XXXX XXXX, excluding XXXX XXXX which were debit card fraud. Robinhood denied each dispute on the basis that the transactions were " authenticated with two factor authentication, App activity. '' This denial reason fails to address whether goods or services were delivered to me as cardholder, which is the controlling question under XXXX chargeback rules and Regulation E. Specifically : The XXXX merchant can not prove delivery. The seller named a recipient XXXX account that returns " user not found '' on XXXXXXXX XXXX public lookup. The seller 's tracking reference does not resolve. The seller provided two contradicting delivery timestamps. The merchant phone number on the transaction detail does not belong to the seller the actual number holder confirmed in writing that charges are appearing on multiple cardholders ' statements for transactions they did not process. The seller also stated in writing that the purchase " may have been someone else with access to your device. '' I have no XXXX account. The XXXX XXXX merchant has produced no evidence of any goods or services delivered to me. Robinhood 's own fraud detection system flagged the XXXX XXXX merchant on the same card on XX/XX/year>, sending SMS alerts marked " Fraud suspected. '' Robinhood can not deny charges to a merchant that its own system identified as fraudulent on the same card on the same day. It was also processed in a fast, fraudulent nature of 2 charges being XXXX both successful and then the attempt multiple times of smaller denominations. XXXX XXXX authentication concern : On XX/XX/year>, Robinhood Support agent XXXX stated in writing that Robinhood " can not verify how many mobile wallets are connected to your Robinhood Debit Card at this time. '' Three of the five disputed transactions were processed via XXXX XXXX. Robinhood 's denial rationale " authenticated with two factor authentication, App activity '' depends on identifying the authenticating device. Robinhood has acknowledged in writing it can not verify which devices hold provisioned tokens for the card. Authentication by a device Robinhood can not identify does not satisfy the burden of proving authorization affirmatively under 12 C.F.R. 1005.6. What I am requesting : What I am requesting : A proper re-investigation that resolves the disputes in my favor and refunds the full disputed amount of {$2400.00}. The merchants involved can not meet the compelling evidence standard required under XXXX chargeback rules to prove the transactions were authorized cardholder purchases with goods or services delivered to me, and Robinhood 's prior denial rationale citing only authentication records does not satisfy its burden of proving authorization affirmatively under 12 C.F.R. 1005.6. Immediate issuance of provisional credit in the amount of the disputed transactions during any continued investigation, as required under 12 C.F.R. 1005.11 ( c ). This obligation is not discretionary and Robinhood 's own employee has confirmed in writing that the deadline for this credit has passed. Enforcement action by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau addressing Robinhood Money LLC 's and XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX failure to comply with Regulation E in this case. Robinhood has, in writing through its own employee, conditioned a mandatory provisional credit on the discretionary outcome of an investigation, which is a substantive misstatement of 1005.11 ( c ). I am asking that the CFPB review this practice to determine whether it is being applied to other cardholders in similar dispute situations. Banking services on this account are provided by XXXX XXXX XXXX. I am requesting that XXXX XXXX XXXX also be notified of this complaint as the chartered bank of record. Case IDs referenced : XXXX ( original dispute appeal ), XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX escalation ). More than willing to comply with any additional evidence requests.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation