Consumer complaint received 2025-11-20 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Managing an account — Problem using a debit or ATM card
Company: SOFI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
State: MI

Complaint narrative:
This is my third complaint regarding SoFis handling of my Regulation E dispute for unauthorized XXXX XXXX debit card transactions. 

I am reporting new misconduct that occurred after my first two complaints were filed.

What Happened SoFi has now issued three different denial letters, each with different and contradictory reasoning, demonstrating a pattern of unreasonable and deceptive investigation practices. 

Letter # XXXX : SoFi falsely claimed they contacted the merchant.

This was proven untrue during my CFPB case, and SoFi admitted they did not contact the merchant.

Letter # 2 : SoFi removed the contacted the merchant language after being caught.

This shows the first investigation was not valid.

Letter # 3 : SoFi introduced new evidence involving text alerts, claiming the transactions were authorized based on the response. 

However, the evidence they added is incomplete and misleading : The alerts contain no dates No timestamps No proof they were sent before the transactions No proof they were received No YES response from me The logs show only outbound messages, not any customer authorization This evidence was not included in the first two letters Despite this, SoFi claimed the transactions were authorized based on the response, even though their own file contains no record of any response at all.

The relevant page of SoFis own document ( uploaded with this complaint ) shows these undated, incomplete text logs.

Why This Is a Regulation E Violation 1. SoFi is retroactively adding new justifications after each complaint This is a classic example of a shifting denial rationale, which the CFPB has repeatedly identified as an unreasonable investigation under 12 CFR 1005.11 ( d ).

2. SoFi has now admitted its first justification was false Removing the merchant contacted language proves the original investigation was improper. 

XXXX. The new text message logs do not prove authorization Regulation E requires evidence of actual authorization for the specific transaction ( 1005.2 ( m ) ).

SoFi has presented no evidence of any : YES response Customer confirmation Timestamp Device match IP/geolocation match Login authorization Merchant verification 4. Providing incomplete, undated, one-directional alert logs is deceptive It is impossible to determine when these alerts were sent or whether they relate to the disputed transactions.

5. SoFis claim that the transactions were authorized based on the response is false Their own documentation contains no response at all.

This appears to be a misrepresentation designed to justify a denial.

Requested Resolution I request that the CFPB require SoFi to : 1. Reopen and conduct a lawful Regulation E investigation 2. Provide complete and dated alert logs, including all alleged customer responses 3. Provide all documentation relied upon in each denial 4. Provide proof of actual authorization, or 5. Immediately issue full reimbursement, as required by Regulation E when authorization is not established I am also requesting the CFPB review this matter as a potential pattern-and-practice violation, given the sequence of false statements

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation