Consumer complaint received 2026-01-23 00:00:00
Product: Credit card — General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Problem with a purchase shown on your statement — Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement
Company: WELLS FARGO & COMPANY
State: NY

Complaint narrative:
Official Complaint against Wells Fargo ( Dispute ID : XXXX & XXXX ) I am formally rejecting the Banks decision. Wells Fargo is in direct violation of Federal Law Regulation Z ( TILA ) by prioritizing internal XXXX XXXX XXXX over my statutory consumer rights. 

I. XXXX XXXX VIOLATIONS 1. WITHHOLDING OF EVIDENCE ( 12 CFR 1026.13 ( f ) ) The Bank claims to have received a contract from " XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) '' but refuses to provide me with a copy. Any document provided by this entity is a criminal forgery. I have never entered into an agreement with the XXXXbased entity. By withholding this document, the Bank is obstructing my right to prove forgery and identity theft. 

2. VOID AUTHORIZATION ( FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT ) The Banks reliance on XXXX XXXX  authentication is legally flawed. Under TILA, authorization obtained through material misrepresentation is void. The merchant used a name identical to my legal contractor ( XXXX XXXX, XXXX ). By concealing the true recipient ( XXXX ), the merchant and the Bank deprived me of the ability to provide informed consent. 

3. LEGAL INCOMPETENCE ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX ) In its denial, Wells Fargo cited Regulation E. This is a credit card dispute governed by Regulation Z ( TILA ). This error proves the Bank failed to conduct a proper legal analysis or a " Reasonable Investigation. '' II. FACTUAL PROOF AND EVIDENCE ( IGNORED BY THE BANK ) The following facts, which the Bank failed to consider, prove the unauthorized nature of these charges : FACT 1 : CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP IS EXCLUSIVELY WITH THE XXXX  ENTITY. 
Evidence : Signed contract with XXXX  XXXX  ( XXXX ), located at XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX. 
Legal Conclusion : No contract exists with XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ). The XXXX entity is a third party with no legal right to my funds. 

FACT 2 : DECEPTION AT THE POINT OF SALE. 
Evidence : Screenshots of the payment link. The merchant name was displayed simply as " XXXX, '' identical to the Russian company. 
Legal Conclusion : I was misled into believing I was paying the contracted party. The link concealed the third-party recipient. FAC
T 3 : ABSENCE OF SERVICE COMPLETION.

Evidence : Video and chat logs ( XXXX  ) confirming no service completion acts were signed. 
Legal Conclusion : The merchant provided the Bank with false representations. No services were accepted or rendered by the XXXX entity. 

FACT 4 : UNAUTHORIZED TRANSFER TO A THIRD PARTY. 
Evidence : Communications with administrators ( using XXXX  phone numbers ) who provided the link without disclosing it belonged to a different legal entity.

Legal Conclusion : This constitutes an unauthorized transfer under TILA due to Fraudulent Inducement.

III. FINAL DEMANDS 1. IMMEDIATE DISCLOSURE : Provide the copy of the " contract '' sent by XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ). I intend to submit it to the FBIs IC3 for a forgery investigation. 

2. REVERSAL OF CHARGES : Credit {$2000.00} back to my account immediately. 

XXXX. CEASE RELIANCE ON XXXX XXXX RULES : Federal Law ( TILA ) supersedes private payment system rules in cases of fraud and material misrepresentation. 

LEGAL CONSEQUENCES AND ESCALATION : Should Wells Fargo fail to comply with my demands and continue to uphold these unauthorized transactions, I am prepared to take the following immediate legal actions : 1. Civil Litigation : I will initiate a formal lawsuit against Wells Fargo for violations of the Truth in Lending Act ( TILA / Regulation Z ) and gross negligence resulting in financial loss. I will seek the full recovery of the {$2000.00}, plus statutory damages, court costs, and reasonable attorney fees as provided by federal law.

2. Criminal Complaint with FBI IC3 : Given that the Bank is relying on a forged document provided by the merchant, I will file a report with the FBIs Internet Crime Complaint Center ( IC3 ). This report will request a criminal investigation into XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) for forgery and identity theft, as well as the Banks role in facilitating and concealing these fraudulent activities. 

3. State Attorney General Referral : I will escalate this matter to the State Attorney Generals Office to request a formal review of Wells Fargos deceptive business practices and its repeated failure to protect consumers from documented fraud.

STATEMENT OF LEGAL VIOLATIONS 1. Violation of the Duty of Reasonable Investigation ( 12 CFR 1026.13 ) Pursuant to federal law ( Regulation Z ), a creditor is mandated to conduct a " Reasonable Investigation '' upon receiving a billing error notice.

Legal Argument : Wells Fargo acted with gross negligence by failing to consider the evidence I submitted regarding forgery and the total absence of a contractual relationship with the recipient ( XXXX XXXX, XXXX ). Relying exclusively on the merchant 's self-serving representations while ignoring documented evidence from the consumer constitutes a failure to perform a good-faith investigation as required by law.

2. Fraudulent Inducement and the Nullity of Consent ( Contract Law Principle ) The Bank incorrectly asserts that the transaction was " authorized '' simply because it was authenticated via XXXX XXXX 
Legal Argument : Under established U.S. contract law principles, consent is rendered a nullity if it is obtained through Fraudulent Inducement. A transaction initiated based on a Material Misrepresentationspecifically, the concealment of the true identity of the recipient and their third-party statusis Void XXXX XXXX ( void from the beginning ). 
The technical act of clicking a button does not validate a transaction that was initiated under false pretenses regarding the counterparty to the contract.

3. Violation of Disclosure Requirements ( 12 CFR 1026.13 ( f ) ) The Bank has violated its statutory obligation to disclose the evidence used to deny the claim.

Legal Argument : A consumer has the right to examine all documents and evidence upon which the creditor relied to deny a dispute. Wells Fargos repeated refusal to provide a copy of the " contract '' allegedly submitted by the merchant deprives me of my right to due process and confirms a procedural violation of Regulation Z.

4. Wrongful Application of Law ( Regulation E vs. Regulation Z ) Wells Fargo demonstrated a fundamental lack of legal competence by citing Regulation E in its official denial of a credit card dispute.

Legal Argument : This transaction involved a credit card, which is governed exclusively by the Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ) and Regulation Z. Citing and applying statutes that govern electronic fund transfers ( debit ) to a credit product is a catastrophic legal error that invalidates the Bank 's findings and demonstrates a failure to comply with the correct regulatory framework.

CONCLUSION Based on the aforementioned violations, I demand the immediate restoration of my rights, the full reversal of the unauthorized transactions ( {$2000.00} ), and immediate access to all case materials for referral to law enforcement agencies for a forgery and identity theft investigation. 

XX/XX/year>

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