Consumer complaint received 2026-06-24 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem — Problem with personal statement of dispute
Company: WELLS FARGO & COMPANY
State: NJ

Complaint narrative:
I am a small business owner and a Wells Fargo XXXX customer disputing a chargeback decision issued by Wells Fargo ( Case ID XXXX, {$58.00} ). The bank sided with the cardholder under a fraud claim ( unauthorized transaction ), despite clear evidence that the transaction was authorized. The customer completed the purchase while logged into their authenticated XXXX account and manually applied XXXX XXXX, which requires full user authentication. The same phone number was used for both billing and shipping, indicating intentional entry of both addresses ( likely a gift purchase ). The order was successfully delivered to the address provided at checkout, and the customer received all order and delivery notifications without reporting fraud until approximately 67 days later. Wells Fargo denied my evidence solely based on a mismatch between shipping and billing names, ignoring strong indicators of authorization. I am requesting a formal review of this decision and appropriate remediation. Detailed Description ( long box ) I am filing a complaint regarding Wells Fargo Banks handling of a chargeback dispute under XXXX reason code 10.4 ( Fraud Card Absent Environment ). Case details : Case ID : XXXX Card ending : XXXX Amount : {$58.00} Transaction date : XX/XX/year> Chargeback date : XX/XX/year> Wells Fargo ruled in favor of the cardholder, stating that the shipping address did not match the cardholders details and that delivery was not proven to the cardholder. However, this conclusion ignores multiple critical indicators of authorization : Authenticated account activity : The customer applied {$0.00} in XXXX XXXX during checkout. XXXX XXXX can only be used when a customer is logged into their authenticated XXXX account and requires active user participation. Consistent contact information : The same phone number was used for both billing and shipping details, indicating the customer intentionally entered both addresses. Successful delivery : The order was shipped via USPS and delivered to the exact address provided at checkout. Customer engagement : The customer received order confirmation, shipping updates, and delivery confirmation emails, and did not report fraud at any point prior to or immediately after delivery. Delayed dispute : The chargeback was filed approximately 67 days after the transaction, which is inconsistent with unauthorized transaction claims. The bank appears to have based its decision solely on a difference between billing and shipping names, without properly evaluating evidence of authentication and customer participation. I am requesting : A formal review of this chargeback decision and return of {$73.00} to my funds. Clarification on how authenticated account activity ( XXXX XXXX usage ) was evaluated Reimbursement or corrective action if the evidence supports merchant authorization As a small business, these types of decisions have a direct financial impact, and I expect a fair and thorough review of the evidence provided.

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