Consumer complaint received 2026-05-21 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: WELLS FARGO & COMPANY
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
To Whom It May Concern, I am formally requesting a comprehensive reinvestigation regarding unauthorized debit card transactions associated with my Wells Fargo account, the handling of the related fraud claims, and the procedural inconsistencies that occurred throughout the investigation process. This submission is intended to provide : a complete factual timeline, clarification regarding disputed transaction inconsistencies, supporting evidence related to the impersonation event that led to discovery of the fraud, and concerns regarding the completeness and reliability of the prior claim investigations and denials. BACKGROUND AND ACCOUNT HISTORY The Wells Fargo account involved was not used as a primary day-to-day spending account during the time of the fraudulent charges ( XX/XX/XXXX - XX/XX/XXXX XXXX ). The account was primarily maintained for recurring expenses, periodic transfers to build a savings account, and limited personal transactions. From XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX, over {$110000.00} in deposits were made into the account, reflecting an established and active banking relationship. The disputed transactions were inconsistent with my normal account behavior, merchant history, and account usage patterns. UNAUTHORIZED TRANSACTION ACTIVITY Beginning XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX, multiple unauthorized debit card transactions occurred on the account. These transactions were all card-not-present/online transactions. The transaction behavior reflected an escalating fraud pattern beginning with smaller validation and test charges and progressing into significantly larger transactions over time. Examples of the unauthorized transaction pattern included : repeated small authorization/test charges, escalating purchase amounts, electric vehicle charging-related charges despite my not owning or operating an electric vehicle, travel and rental-related transactions inconsistent with my account history, and merchant activity inconsistent with the purpose and ordinary use of the account. The disputed transactions included the following : XX/XX/XXXX {$340.00} XX/XX/XXXX {$320.00} XX/XX/XXXX {$440.00} XX/XX/XXXX {$38.00} XX/XX/XXXX {$260.00} XX/XX/XXXX {$110.00} XX/XX/XXXX {$210.00} XX/XX/XXXX {$25.00} XX/XX/XXXX {$16.00} XX/XX/XXXX {$20.00} XX/XX/XXXX {$48.00} XX/XX/XXXX {$86.00} XX/XX/XXXX {$950.00} XX/XX/XXXX {$3700.00} XX/XX/XXXX {$110.00} XX/XX/XXXX {$1700.00} XX/XX/XXXX {$2200.00} XX/XX/XXXX {$69.00} XX/XX/XXXX {$1600.00} XX/XX/XXXX {$2200.00} XX/XX/XXXX {$130.00} XX/XX/XXXX {$29.00} XX/XX/XXXX {$420.00} XX/XX/XXXX {$360.00} Additional disputed amount {$210.00} The total disputed amount exceeded {$15000.00}. XX/XX/XXXX FRAUD DISCOVERY AND IMPERSONATION EVENT On XX/XX/XXXX at approximately XXXX AM PST, I received a text message stating : Wells Fargo XXXX : Did you make a {$430.00} purchase at Target card ending XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX? Reply YES or NO. To opt out of alerts, reply STOP. At approximately XXXX AM PST, I responded NO because I did not authorize the transaction. Immediately afterward, I received a second text message stating : Thank you for verifying. A call will be sent shortly for security purposes. XXXX ID # XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. At approximately XXXX AM PST, I received an inbound phone call from phone number ( XXXX ) XXXX. The caller identified himself as a Wells Fargo fraud representative. The call lasted approximately XXXX minutes. During the call, the individual already possessed extensive personal and account information associated with me, including : my full name, my address on file, my email address, my full XXXX debit card number, the card expiration date, and the CVV/security code. I did not provide new sensitive information during the call. I only confirmed information the caller already possessed. The caller questioned me regarding an alleged XXXX transaction in XXXX matching the transaction referenced in the original text message. I confirmed that the transaction was not authorized by me. The caller additionally stated that an authorized user named XXXX XXXX had allegedly been added to the account on XX/XX/XXXX and referenced phone number XXXX as being associated with the account. I informed the caller that : I did not recognize the individual, I did not recognize the phone number, and no authorized users existed on my account. Shortly after the discussion regarding the alleged authorized user, the call disconnected unexpectedly. I attempted to call the number back and discovered the number appeared to be associated with a personal cellular number connected to the XXXX, XXXX area rather than an official Wells Fargo contact number. At that point, I became suspicious that I had been targeted by an impersonation scam. The impersonation communications directly caused me to review my Wells Fargo account activity in detail for the first time, at which point I discovered the unauthorized transactions. XX/XX/XXXX INITIAL FRAUD REPORT TO WELLS FARGO At approximately XXXX AM PST on XX/XX/XXXX, I independently contacted Wells Fargo directly at ( XXXX ) XXXX to report the incident and unauthorized transactions. During that call, I spoke with multiple Wells Fargo representatives and was ultimately transferred to the fraud department. I provided : the complete timeline of the fraudulent text messages, details regarding the impersonation phone call, the unauthorized transactions discovered, and the associated concerns regarding account compromise. Throughout subsequent communications with Wells Fargo XXXX, I was repeatedly asked : whether I still possessed the physical debit card, whether anyone else had access to the card, and whether anyone else knew the PIN. My responses remained consistent : I maintained possession of the physical card at all times, no other person had authorized access to the card, and no other person had authorized access to the PIN. XX/XX/XXXX COLLECTIONS-RELATED CALL AND INTERNAL CLAIM CONFUSION On XX/XX/XXXX at approximately XXXX PM XXXX, I received another XXXX Fargo-related phone call. When I returned the call, the representative I spoke with appeared unaware of any fraud claims associated with the account. Instead of discussing the active fraud investigation, the representative focused on collection efforts relating to the negative account balance caused by overdrafts and non-sufficient funds fees resulting from the disputed transactions. During that interaction : I was threatened with possible account closure and collections activity, the representative was unable to locate or verify the fraud claims already reported, and I was again asked to identify which transactions were fraudulent despite prior detailed reports already having been made. Due to the inability of the representative to locate the previously reported fraud claims and the inconsistent information being provided, I was uncomfortable repeatedly restating sensitive account details without confidence that the matter was being handled consistently within XXXX XXXX internal systems. XX/XX/XXXX CONTINUED TRANSACTION DISCREPANCIES On XX/XX/XXXX at approximately XXXX AM PST, I received another inbound call from a Wells Fargo XXXX department representative. During that call, which lasted approximately XXXX minutes, the representative again reviewed the timeline and disputed transactions with me. During this discussion, inconsistencies became apparent between : the transactions I originally disputed, the transaction totals reflected online, and the transaction records visible internally to Wells Fargo representatives. Some disputed transactions were omitted entirely from certain claim records, while other transactions appeared that I had not separately identified. XX/XX/XXXX RECONCILIATION OF TRANSACTION LISTS On XX/XX/XXXX, another Wells Fargo XXXX representative reviewed the matter with me in detail. During that conversation : I was informed the prior fraud claim had already been denied, substantial inconsistencies became apparent regarding the underlying claim records, and the representative advised that internally she was only able to view approximately XXXX disputed transactions while the Wells Fargo online system reflected approximately XXXX disputed transactions. Additionally : several disputed transactions I originally reported were absent from portions of the internal records, while other transactions appeared that I had not separately identified. During the call, the representative and I manually reviewed and reconciled the transaction records together. After reconciliation, the representative confirmed that the corrected transaction history aligned with my original records and advised that the matter should be resubmitted and expedited due to the discrepancies identified during the prior handling of the claim. The representative additionally documented the matter as creating financial hardship. At no point prior to the XX/XX/XXXX conversation had any Wells Fargo representative requested or reviewed : screenshots, communication records, impersonation evidence, call logs, or supporting documentation related to the fraud discovery. INVESTIGATION TIMELINE CONCERNS Although the fraud was initially reported on XX/XX/XXXX, the effective business-day investigation period appears to have run only from XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX. This reflects approximately XXXX business days for investigation of : a high-dollar fraud claim, involving more than XXXX dozen disputed transactions, involving card-not-present transactions, involving transaction inconsistencies, involving fragmented claim records, and involving an impersonation event and account compromise allegations. XX/XX/XXXX REOPENED CLAIM DENIAL On Monday, XX/XX/XXXX at approximately XXXX AM PST, I received another inbound call from Wells Fargo regarding the reopened fraud claim. I returned the call later that day and was informed that the reopened claim had again been denied. During the conversation : I requested clarification regarding how the reinvestigation could reasonably have been completed within such a limited timeframe, particularly because the prior representative had advised on XX/XX/XXXX that supporting evidence could be submitted within approximately XXXX hours. I was informed that the claim reopening occurred on Friday, XX/XX/XXXX at approximately XXXX PM XXXX. However, by Monday morning, XX/XX/XXXX, the claim had already again been denied despite no meaningful business-day investigation period appearing to have occurred between reopening and denial. During the XX/XX/XXXX discussion : the representative referenced approximately XXXX disputed transactions, further conflicting with the prior internal transaction counts of approximately XXXX and approximately XXXX transactions previously referenced by Wells Fargo XXXX and representatives. Additional inconsistencies became apparent regarding : transaction totals, transaction groupings, digital card analysis, and prior transaction history interpretations. The representative additionally stated that some disputed transactions were allegedly associated with a digital card number. However, given that the impersonation caller already possessed : my name, address, email address, full debit card number, expiration date, and CVV/security code, it is entirely plausible that unauthorized individuals also obtained access to digital wallet or digital card information associated with the compromised account. The representative additionally referenced alleged prior XXXX transaction history as support for denial reasoning. However : I do not maintain a XXXX account, disputed XXXX transactions themselves had previously been inconsistently grouped across Wells Fargo XXXX, and prior claim records omitted certain disputed XXXX transactions entirely. As a result, transaction activity that should have been grouped together as part of the same disputed fraud activity instead appeared fragmented across differing claim records, creating the inaccurate appearance of unrelated prior usage history. During the XX/XX/XXXX discussion, I was additionally provided XXXX Escalation reference number XXXX associated with the continued review and escalation of the matter. CONCLUSION AND REQUEST The repeated inconsistencies involving : transaction totals, transaction groupings, differing internal transaction counts, claim visibility, omitted disputed transactions, additional unexplained transactions, fragmented records, digital card analysis, denial timing, and the absence of meaningful evidence review prior to denial raise substantial concerns regarding whether the prior investigation process was : complete, internally consistent, procedurally reliable, and based upon accurate consolidated claim information. Supporting documentation attached includes : screenshots of fraudulent text messages, call records, timestamps, communication evidence, transaction records, and related supporting documentation connected to the impersonation event and discovery of the unauthorized transactions. These communications occurred contemporaneously with the fraud discovery and include references to unauthorized account activity, an alleged authorized user added on XX/XX/XXXX, and additional account-related information not associated with me. This evidence further supports that the account information had been compromised and that the disputed transactions were unauthorized. Given the inconsistencies identified during the prior handling of the claim, I respectfully request : a full and comprehensive reinvestigation, review of all supporting evidence, review utilizing the corrected and reconciled transaction records, and written clarification regarding the basis for prior denials and fragmented claim handling.

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