Consumer complaint received 2026-06-12 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Managing an account — Deposits and withdrawals
Company: WELLS FARGO & COMPANY
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Complaint Company : Wells Fargo Bank Related Claim ID : XXXX Related Executive Escalation Reference : XXXX Related CFPB Complaint Reference : XXXX Complaint Category : Investigation Process / Complaint Handling / Inconsistent Findings Complaint Narrative : This complaint concerns Wells Fargo 's handling of the investigation process itself and the changing factual basis used to support denial of my fraud claim. My original complaint involved unauthorized debit-card transactions totaling approximately {$15000.00} including resulting fees. However, the focus of this complaint is not simply the denial of reimbursement. Rather, it concerns the consistency, accuracy, and reliability of the investigative process utilized to reach that determination. Throughout the handling of the matter, Wells Fargo systems and representatives reflected materially different transaction counts and records. During the course of the investigation, I was presented with approximately 27 transactions, 30 transactions, 35 transactions, and ultimately 39 disputed transactions identified through reconciliation efforts. Because the underlying disputed transaction records changed depending on the representative, department, or system being reviewed, I became concerned regarding the reliability of the data used to support the investigative conclusions. Additionally, Wells Fargo 's written denial specifically stated : " The shipping address provided to the merchant for the disputed transaction ( s ) matches your address on file. '' When I challenged that statement, I explained that the address maintained on file with Wells Fargo was my mother 's residence and that I do not routinely receive packages or merchandise shipments at that address and have not done so for years. Following that challenge, the explanation provided by Wells Fargo changed from shipping address matching to billing address matching. These are materially different facts. A shipping address concerns where merchandise is delivered. A billing address concerns payment verification. As a result, I am unable to determine which factual basis was actually relied upon during the investigation. I also received an executive-level review following my original CFPB complaint. During those discussions, I was advised that the claim had been denied. However, after being informed of the denial, I was then asked multiple additional investigative questions regarding possession of the card, possession of the PIN, access to the account, and related issues. This created additional confusion because it is unclear why substantive investigative questions were still being asked if the determination had already been finalized. Conversely, if the investigation remained ongoing, it is unclear how the matter could already be considered closed. Another concern involves the investigative factors relied upon to support denial. Wells Fargo repeatedly referenced factors including : Continued possession of the physical card ; Continued possession of the PIN ; Geographic similarity ; Merchant similarity ; Digital-card activity ; and Android-device activity. However, the matter also involved a documented impersonation event in which an individual posing as a Wells Fargo representative possessed substantial account-specific information, including personal identifying information and card-related information. During that impersonation event, I was advised that an alleged unauthorized user had been added to the account and was associated with a telephone number utilizing the same XXXX area code as my own number. This raises concerns regarding the degree of weight placed upon geographic-pattern analysis and other account-association indicators when evaluating sophisticated account-compromise scenarios. Additionally, Wells Fargo has repeatedly referenced digital-card and Android-device activity as a basis supporting denial. However, I have not been provided documentation explaining how Wells Fargo determined that the device involved belonged to me rather than an unauthorized actor possessing compromised account information. My concern is that several factors cited in support of denial appear to demonstrate association with an account rather than authorization by the account holder. I am requesting review of Wells Fargo 's investigative and complaint-handling process, including : inconsistent transaction records; changing factual explanations ; conflicting shipping-address and billing-address rationales ; post-denial investigative activity ; the factual basis supporting device attribution conclusions ; and whether the investigative methodology utilized was sufficiently reliable and internally consistent under the circumstances presented. Requested Resolution : I request an independent review of Wells Fargo 's investigative process, the factual basis relied upon in support of denial, and the consistency of the records and explanations provided throughout the handling of this matter. I also request that Wells Fargo be required to clearly identify the specific evidence relied upon to support its conclusions and address the inconsistencies outlined above.

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