Consumer complaint received 2026-02-25 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: CA

Complaint narrative:
I am filing this complaint against SoFi Bank, N.A. regarding its refusal to reimburse clearly unauthorized transactions totaling {$16000.00} from my checking account ending in XXXX. Between XXXX XXXX, 2026, a series of unauthorized ATM withdrawals, debit card purchases, and P2P transfers occurred in XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX, Utah. I reside in California and was physically present in XXXX XXXX during this time. I did not authorize any of these transactions, did not share my PIN, and did not provide my debit card or banking credentials to any third party. The fraudulent activity included : Structured {$300.00} ATM withdrawals in Utah XXXX XXXX XXXX purchases Large XXXX and grocery transactions P2P transfers to an unknown individual Rapid depletion of funds following internal transfers from savings The total amount taken was {$16000.00}. Under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1693 ) and Regulation E ( 12 C.F.R. 1005.11 ), the use of a correct PIN, device authentication, or biometric credential does not establish authorization if account credentials were compromised through account takeover or identity theft. Internal authentication markers are not dispositive evidence of consumer authorization. Additionally, on XX/XX/year>, I was informed by a XXXX representative that a debit card had been sent on XX/XX/year> to : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Utah XXXX This is not my address and I did not request a replacement card. A subsequent representative contradicted this statement and indicated there was no record of such shipment. This inconsistency raises serious concerns regarding unauthorized address change, card issuance, and internal recordkeeping. I timely reported the fraud on XXXX XXXX, 2026, immediately upon discovery and well within the XXXX timeframe required under Regulation E. SoFi has denied my claim 3 times, stating that : The correct PIN was used The transactions were made with an authenticated mobile device Biometric authentication and/or passcode approval was used A user-initiated funds load occurred prior to the transactions These conclusions are incorrect and fail to consider the possibility of account takeover, SIM swap fraud, cloned card activity, or compromised authentication credentials. The use of a PIN or mobile authentication does not prove authorization by the account holder. Additionally : I filed a police report with the XXXX XXXX Police Department. I have filed complaints with the California Department XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX ( XXXX ). I am consulting with legal counsel. I am working with a private XXXX to document the fraud. Despite providing notice and disputing the transactions in good faith, SoFi has refused to provide reimbursement and has not demonstrated that I authorized these transactions. Under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ) and Regulation E, consumers are protected from liability for unauthorized electronic fund transfers when timely notice is given. I notified SoFi promptly and cooperated fully with their investigation. I am requesting that the CFPB require SoFi to : Reopen and conduct a proper investigation. Provide full reimbursement of {$16000.00}. Provide documentation supporting their denial decision. Confirm compliance with Regulation E investigation requirements. SoFis reliance solely on PIN usage and device authentication is insufficient to establish authorization and does not meet the burden required under federal law. I respectfully request assistance in resolving this matter.

Company response to consumer: Closed with monetary relief