Consumer complaint received 2026-04-10 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Managing an account — Problem using a debit or ATM card
Company: Chime Financial Inc
State: MI

Complaint narrative:
CFPB Complaint Narrative : Supplemental Filing Company : Chime Financial , Inc./ XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Claim ID : XXXX Account : Ending in XXXX Dispute Type : Debit, Non-Receipt of Goods or Services Amount : {$900.00} Date Error Reported : XX/XX/XXXX Prior CFPB Complaint : XXXX Summary I am filing this supplemental complaint to document concerns regarding Chime Financial and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. 's handling of Claim ID XXXX under Regulation XXXX This complaint addresses four areas : ( 1 ) denial of provisional credit based on a legal standard not found in Regulation E, ( 2 ) a documentation request issued on the final day of the investigation through a mechanism that expired before it could reasonably be acted upon, ( 3 ) a denial issued after the 90-day investigation window had closed, and ( 4 ) failure to provide investigation documents upon request. I am presenting these facts for the Bureau 's evaluation in the context of Chime 's prior enforcement history. Complete Timeline of Events XX/XX/XXXX : I initiated a {$900.00} debit card transaction to Hard Rock Bet. The service associated with this transaction was not delivered. XX/XX/XXXX ( Day XXXX ) : I reported the error to Chime and filed Dispute # XXXX under the category of Non-Receipt of Goods or Services. Chime assigned the dispute and began its investigation. Within 10 business days : No provisional credit was issued to my account. When I inquired about provisional credit, I was told by a Chime representative that provisional credit was not available because the dispute was not classified as fraud. XX/XX/XXXX ( Day XXXX ), XXXX XXXX XXXX : I called Chime to check the status of the dispute. The call lasted 33 minutes before being disconnected. I was again told that no provisional credit would be issued and that the dispute was not eligible because it was not a fraud claim. I have a screenshot of the dispute still showing as open at this time. XX/XX/XXXX ( Day XXXX ), XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX I called Chime back after the disconnection. This second call lasted 11 minutes. The same position was communicated : no provisional credit because the dispute was not classified as fraud. No documentation or information was requested from me during either call or at any prior point in the investigation. This is the second occasion on which Chime communicated this incorrect legal standard to me. I have phone records documenting both calls. XX/XX/XXXX ( Day XXXX ), XXXX XXXX XXXX : I called Chime to check the status of the dispute on the final day of the 90-day investigation window. This call lasted 12 minutes. On every prior call throughout the dispute, I was routed directly to the dispute team. On this call, I was routed only to a general customer service representative who could not access dispute details or provide specific information about the claim. The representative stated : ( 1 ) no resolution had been issued, ( 2 ) if I did not receive a resolution by end of day, I should call back XX/XX/XXXX to 'discuss a new timeline for a resolution, ' and ( 3 ) the transaction was not eligible for provisional credit because it was not a fraud dispute. XX/XX/XXXX ( Day XXXX ), XXXXXXXX XXXX through XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX : I made XXXX additional calls to Chime between XXXX XXXX and XXXX PM attempting to reach the dispute team or get further information. Call durations were 1, 1, 1, 3, and 10 minutes respectively. Most were disconnected or resulted in short interactions with no substantive information provided. My phone records document all six calls on this date. I note that the change in call routing on the deadline date, and the inability to reach anyone with dispute authority across six separate attempts, was a departure from my experience on every prior call. XX/XX/XXXX, XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX ( Day XXXX ) : Within minutes of my last call ending at approximately XXXXXXXX XXXX, Chime sent an email titled 'Re : Secure Documentation Request for Dispute ID XXXX ' requesting that I upload supporting documents via a secure link. The email stated that the upload link expires one hour after generation. I note the proximity in timing between my final call and this request. This was the first and only request for documentation in the entire 90-day investigation. No documentation had been requested at any point during the prior 89 days. The link had expired by the time the email could reasonably be read and acted upon. XX/XX/XXXX, approximately XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Day 90 ) : I filed a CFPB complaint ( the prior complaint referenced above ) documenting the missed provisional credit and the approaching deadline. XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Day 90 ) : I captured a screenshot of the Chime app confirming Dispute # XXXX was still showing as 'In progress ' under the XXXX ' tab. No resolution had been issued. XX/XX/XXXX, XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX ( Day 90 ) : I captured an additional screenshot confirming the dispute was still showing as 'In progress ' and 'Open. ' No resolution had been issued with fewer than 30 minutes remaining in Day 90. XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Day 91 ) : I captured a screenshot of the Chime app confirming Dispute # XXXX was still showing as 'In progress ' under the 'Open ' tab. The 90-day investigation window had closed. XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Day 91 ) : I captured additional screenshots. The dispute was still showing 'In progress ' and 'Open. ' The 'Closed ' tab showed 'No past disputes, ' confirming no determination had been made. XX/XX/XXXX, approximately XXXX AM ET ( Day 91 ) : Chime sent an email from XXXX with the subject 'Important Account Information ' issuing a final determination denying the claim. The denial stated that Chime 'concluded no error occurred " based on " a review of our systems ' and 'information provided during the claim filing process. ' No specific findings were provided. No evidence was cited. No explanation of how Chime determined no error occurred was included. The denial was issued approximately XXXX hours after requesting documentation through an already-expired link, without waiting for or referencing any response to that request. XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX : I sent a written request to XXXX citing 12 CFR 1005.11 ( d ) and requesting all documents relied upon in the investigation and determination. Chime responded with a generic auto-reply directing me to call ( XXXX ) XXXX or contact them through the app. No documents were provided. No substantive response was given. The auto-reply did not acknowledge the document request, did not provide a timeline for production, and did not identify who would handle it. Violation 1 : Failure to Issue Provisional Credit Under 12 CFR 1005.11 ( c ) ( 2 ) ( i ), when a financial institution can not complete its investigation within 10 business days, it must provisionally credit the consumer 's account for the full amount of the alleged error within 10 business days of receiving the error notice. This requirement applies to all error types covered by Reg E, including non-receipt of goods or services. There are only two narrow exceptions : ( A ) the institution requested written confirmation of an oral notice and did not receive it within 10 business days, or ( B ) the account is subject to Regulation T ( securities margin accounts ). Neither exception applies here. Chime did not issue provisional credit for this {$900.00} dispute. When I inquired about provisional credit on at least three separate occasions ( within 10 business days, on XX/XX/XXXX across two calls totaling 44 minutes, and again on XX/XX/XXXX ), I was told by Chime representatives that provisional credit was not available because the dispute was not classified as fraud. This standard does not appear in Regulation E. The regulation does not limit provisional credit to fraud or unauthorized transaction disputes. The provisional credit requirement under 1005.11 ( c ) ( 2 ) ( i ) applies whenever the institution extends its investigation beyond 10 business days, regardless of the error type. The consistency of this response across three separate occasions and multiple representatives sugg ests this may reflect a policy or training issue rather than an isolated error by a single employee. Chime 's refusal to issue provisional credit while extending the investigation to 91 days caused me direct financial harm. I was deprived of access to {$900.00} for the entire duration of the investigation. Violation 2 : Investigation Exceeded 90-Day Deadline Under 12 CFR 1005.11 ( c ) ( 3 ) ( ii ), the investigation period for POS debit card transactions may be extended to 90 days ( in place of 45 days ). Chime 's investigation began on XX/XX/XXXX. The 90th day was XX/XX/XXXX. As of XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX ( Day XXXX ), the dispute was still showing as 'In progress ' and 'Open ' in the Chime app. Screenshots captured at XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX ( Day 91 ) confirmed the dispute remained open past midnight. The XXXX ' tab showed 'No past disputes ' at XXXX XXXX. The denial was not issued until approximately XXXX XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. This means the investigation was completed and the determination issued after the 90-day regulatory window had closed. Furthermore, because Chime never issued provisional credit as required under 1005.11 ( c ) ( 2 ) ( i ), Chime was not entitled to the extended investigation period in the first place. The 45-day and 90-day extensions are conditioned on the institution provisionally crediting the consumer 's account. Without provisional credit, the investigation should have been completed within 10 business days. Violation 3 : Documentation Request on Day 90 Chime conducted its investigation for 90 calendar days without requesting any documentation from me. No request for information, evidence, receipts, correspondence, or any other supporting material was made at any point during the first 89 days. On Day 90 of the investigation ( XX/XX/XXXX ), at XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, Chime sent its first and only request for supporting documentation via a secure upload link that expires one hour after generation. Fewer than XXXX hours later, at approximately XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX, Chime issued its final determination denying the claim. The denial provided no specific findings and did not reference any response or lack of response to the documentation request. I present the following timeline for the XXXX 's consideration. A documentation request was sent at XXXX XXXX on the final day of the investigation window, through a link that expires in one hour. A denial was issued during overnight hours fewer than 8 hours later. No documentation had been requested during the prior 89 days. The denial did not reference any response or lack of response to the documentation request. I respectfully submit that this sequence raises questions about whether the documentation request was part of a substantive investigation or served another purpose. Violation 4 : Failure to Provide Investigation Documents Under 12 CFR 1005.11 ( d ) ( 1 ), when a financial institution determines no error occurred, its report must include a written explanation of its findings and must note the consumer 's right to request the documents relied upon. Upon request, the institution must promptly provide copies. Chime 's denial email did reference this right. On XX/XX/XXXX, at XXXX XXXX XXXX, I sent a written request to XXXX citing 12 CFR 1005.11 ( d ) and requesting all documents relied upon in the investigation and determination. Chime responded with a generic auto-reply directing me to call ( XXXX ) XXXX or contact them through the app. No documents have been provided. No substantive response was given. Additionally, the denial email may not satisfy the written explanation requirement under 1005.11 ( d ) ( 1 ). The email states only that Chime 'concluded no error occurred " based on " a review of our systems ' and 'information provided during the claim filing process. ' No specific evidence was cited, no investigative steps were described, and no reasoning was provided for how Chime reached its conclusion. I respectfully ask the Bureau to evaluate whether this meets the standard for a written explanation of findings. Pattern of Conduct The conduct described in this complaint is consistent with a documented pattern of Regulation E and consumer protection violations by Chime Financial : CFPB Consent Order, XX/XX/XXXX ( File No. XXXX ) : The Bureau found that Chime engaged in unfair practices by failing to timely refund consumer balances after account closures, with thousands of consumers waiting more than 90 days. Chime was ordered to pay a {$3.00} million civil money penalty and at least {$1.00} million in consumer redress. The consent order explicitly states that the Bureau may use these practices 'to establish a pattern or practice of violations ' in future enforcement. California DFPI Consent Order, XX/XX/XXXX : Chime was fined {$2.00} XXXX by the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation for unfair and untimely handling of consumer complaints. Chime was ordered to improve customer service standards, ensure 24/7 support, and report to the DFPI annually for two years. CFPB Complaint Database : Chime has been the subject of thousands of consumer complaints filed with the CFPB. Reporting from XXXX documented XXXX CFPB complaints between XX/XX/XXXX and XXXX alone, with nearly XXXX involving locked accounts. Consumers have also filed over XXXX complaints with the Better Business Bureau. The facts of my case reflect a similar pattern. Provisional credit was denied based on a legal standard not found in Regulation E. Documentation was requested on the final day of the investigation through a link that expired within one hour. The investigation exceeded the regulatory deadline. Investigation documents were requested and have not been provided. I respectfully ask the Bureau to evaluate whether these facts, taken together, reflect compliance with the requirements of Regulation E. Relief Requested I request that the CFPB : Investigate Chime 's practice of denying provisional credit for non-fraud Reg E disputes, which appears to be a systemic misapplication of 12 CFR 1005.11 ( c ) ( 2 ) ( i ). Require Chime and XXXX XXXX XXXX to promptly provide the investigation documents I requested under 12 CFR 1005.11 ( d ) ( 1 ). Evaluate whether the documentation request and denial timeline in this case constitutes a good-faith investigation under Regulation E. Evaluate whether the denial, issued on Day 91 after the 90-day investigation window closed, constitutes a valid determination under 12 CFR 1005.11 ( c ) ( 3 ) ( ii ). Consider this complaint in the context of the existing 2024 CFPB consent order and California DFPI consent order, and Chime 's documented pattern of consumer protection violations. Filed by : XXXX XXXX Email : XXXX Phone : XXXX Date : XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation