Consumer complaint received 2024-12-05 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: SD

Complaint narrative:
Between XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX there were 147 transactions processed by XXXX on my checking account. Eighty or more of those transactions were not authorized by me. I contacted Ally bank to dispute these additional charges from a merchant that I had built a relationship with in the month and a half that I used it's services not being aware they were illegal. They disputed as far as I can see 35 of the 80+ duplicate transactions in dispute XXXX. 
Dispute Number: XXXX

| Transaction Date | Amount    XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX They denied the other 45+ disputes on the grounds that I had an established relationship with them.They lied in their response to my last complaint saying "Between XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX you initiated 36 disputes via Customer Care and Ally Online Services (AOS) for Point-of-Sale (POS) transactions of various amounts from numerous merchants, which debited your Spending 
Account ending in XXXX  "In regard to your CFPB concern from XXXX XXXX XXXX, about the double 
credits, a review of your account was conducted. On XXXX XXXX XXXX, you 
advised Customer Care that you wanted to dispute some transactions because 
you authorized charges to the merchant, but the merchant double charged 
each transaction. The associate initiated Dispute XXXX for 25 POS 
transactions from XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX for a total of XXXX 
that debited your Spending Account ending in XXXX on XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX.
On XXXX XXXX XXXX, we provided you with provisional credit for the abovereferenced transactions while we completed our investigation. Additionally, we 
mailed to your address on file and made available through AOS a letter 
advising that you would have full access to these funds while we completed our 
research.
That same day, the merchant XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX credited your 
Spending Account a total of XXXX. The next day, the merchant credited 
Page 3 Ally Bank, Member FDIC
 
your Spending Account XXXX. The total amount of credits provided by the 
merchant was XXXX

For one there are 35 transactions up there for disput XXXX not XXXX. I filed transational disputes with the help of customer service on under dispute Number XXXX got disconnected then called back filed more under dispute Number XXXX, got disconnected again then filed under number XXXX. I have disputes under XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. 

My question is after these people stole from me and admitted it by paying part of it back is why did you not pursue the rest and tell me it was because I had an established relationship with them? I did spend money with this merchant, but does that mean they didn't steal from me? This establishment has no licensing, no sales tax license, no right to be selling anything. 10-45-2.7. Retailers processing orders electronically.

The processing of orders electronically, including facsimile, telephone, the internet, or other electronic ordering process, does not relieve a retailer of responsibility for collection of the tax from the purchaser if the retailer is doing business in this state pursuant to  10-45-2.5 to 10-45-2.9, inclusive10-45-2.4. Tax on products transferred electronically.

There is hereby imposed a tax at the same rate as that imposed upon sales of tangible personal property in this state upon the gross receipts of all sales, leases, or rentals of any product transferred electronically.

The tax is imposed if:

(1)    The sale is to an end user;

(2)    The sale is to a person who is not an end user, unless otherwise exempted by this chapter;

(3)    The seller grants the right of permanent or less than permanent use of the products transferred electronically; or

(4)    The sale is conditioned or not conditioned upon continued payment.

For the purposes of this section, the term, end user, does not include any person who received by contract any product transferred electronically for further commercial broadcast, rebroadcast, transmission, retransmission, licensing, relicensing, distribution, redistribution, or exhibition of the product, in whole or in part, to another person.

For the purposes of this section, the term, permanent use, means perpetual or for an indefinite or unspecified length of time. The sale of a digital code that may be utilized to obtain a product transferred electronically shall be taxed in the same manner as the product transferred electronically. A digital code is a code that permits a purchaser to obtain at a later date a product transferred electronically10-64-2. Certain sellers located outside of state required to collect and remit sales taxes--Criteria.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any seller selling tangible personal property, products transferred electronically, or services for delivery into South Dakota, who does not have a physical presence in the state, is subject to chapters 10-45, 10-46E, and 10-52, and shall remit the sales tax and follow all applicable procedures and requirements of law as if the seller had a physical presence in the state, provided the seller's gross revenue from the sale of tangible personal property, any product transferred electronically, or services delivered into South Dakota

22-25A-7. Internet betting by person engaged in gambling business prohibited. Except as provided in  22-25A-15, no person engaged in a gambling business may use the internet or an interactive computer service to bet or wager.

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