Consumer complaint received 2025-12-31 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: SOFI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
Regulation E Violations Bank Failed to Provide Required Documentation and Failed to Issue Provisional Credit. 

This complaint is not about the original dispute, but about SoFi Banks repeated violations of Regulation E during the dispute process. The bank did not follow the requirements of 12 CFR 1005.11 and denied my rights under EFTA.

1. SoFi did not provide the documents they used in their investigation.

Violation : 12 CFR 1005.11 ( d ) I asked twice for the documents they relied on to deny my dispute, and they still have not provided anything. Regulation E requires the bank to give the consumer copies of the documents they used. Without this, I can not verify whether their investigation was valid.

2. SoFi failed to issue provisional credit for one of the transactions.

Violation : 12 CFR 1005.11 ( c ) ( 2 ) ( i ) The {$800.00} dispute was not resolved within 10 business days, and they never issued provisional credit. Regulation E requires provisional credit when the investigation is not completed in time. This requirement is not optional.

3. SoFi used the fact that my card was in my possession to deny the claim, which is not allowed.

Violation : 12 CFR 1005.2 ( m ) Regulation E makes it clear that a transaction can be unauthorized even if the card is in the consumers possession. SoFi treated card-present as proof of authorization, which is not legally correct.

4. The bank tried to restart the Regulation E timeline by asking for additional information after they had already made a decision. 
Violation : 12 CFR 1005.11 ( c ) ( 1 ) The clock for the investigation starts when the consumer reports the error. The bank can not extend or reset the timeline by requesting unnecessary information after an initial decision. This delayed the investigation and delayed provisional credit.

5. They changed the dispute type without my consent.

Violation : 12 CFR 1005.11 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( ii ) Expecting to be charged {$100.00} does not authorize {$150.00}. SoFi reclassified my dispute based on my explanation, but that does not change the fact that the higher amount was not authorized.

6. SoFis investigation was not reasonable.

Violation : 12 CFR 1005.11 ( c ) ( 1 ) Rather than provide actual evidence, they referenced irrelevant facts like me logging into my account days before the transaction. That does not prove authorization or resolve whether an error occurred. A reasonable investigation requires reviewing merchant data and transaction evidence, which they did not provide. 

I raised these issues in a prior complaint, but the bank still refuses to provide documentation or issue provisional credit. I am filing this new complaint specifically for the Regulation E violations listed above. 

I am requesting that the CFPB require SoFi Bank to : Provide all documentation relied upon in their investigation Issue full provisional credit for both disputed transactions as required Reinvestigate the matter in compliance with Regulation E Because these issues involve repeated violations of Regulation E, the failure to provide required documentation, and the failure to issue mandatory provisional credit under 1005.11 ( c ) ( 2 ) ( i ), I am asking for supervisory escalation of this complaint. I have attempted to resolve this matter directly with the bank, and the previous CFPB complaint did not result in compliance. These violations continue to cause financial harm, and the bank has not followed federal requirements. I am requesting that this complaint be reviewed at the supervisory level for enforcement of Regulation E. 

Thank you.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation