Consumer complaint received 2026-04-28 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Other banking product or service
Issue: Managing an account — Deposits and withdrawals
Company: FinCo Services Inc DBA Current
State: IL

Complaint narrative:
XX/XX/XXXX Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Office of Consumer Response XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX DC XXXX RE : Formal Complaint Against Current ( Current Account XXXX XXXX XXXX ) Wrongful Denial of Fraud Disputes, Geolocation Impossibility, and Failure to Protect Consumer on Secured Build Card To Whom It May Concern, I am writing to file a formal complaint against Current ( Current Account XXXX XXXX XXXX ) regarding the wrongful denial of multiple fraud disputes totaling approximately {$1100.00} on my Current XXXX XXXX credit card. Current has denied disputes involving a Pennsylvania-licensed gambling platform despite the fact that I was physically located in XXXX, Illinois on the dates in question making it legally and physically impossible for me to have authorized these transactions. Current 's investigation conclusion that these charges were 'authorized by me ' is factually unsupportable and constitutes a failure of their fraud detection obligations. Account Information Account Holder : XXXX XXXX Address : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, IL XXXX Summary of All Open and Denied Disputes Dispute ID Amount Status Merchant XXXX {$460.00} Pending XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX {$610.00} DENIED XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX transactions ) XXXX {$25.00} DENIED XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX {$75.00} DENIED XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX {$20.00} Pending XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX TOTAL ~ {$1100.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Impossibility Pennsylvania-Licensed Gambling Platform The merchant XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX ' is a XXXX XXXX XXXX platform. Under Pennsylvania gaming law and federal online gambling regulations, licensed gambling platforms are required to use mandatory XXXX verification to confirm that users are physically located within the state of Pennsylvania at the time of any wager or transaction. It is a legal and technical impossibility for a transaction to be authorized by a person located in Illinois. I was physically located in XXXX, Illinois on XX/XX/XXXX, and XXXX, XXXX the dates of all disputed XXXX XXXX transactions. I have never traveled to Pennsylvania in connection with these transactions. My Illinois address ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, IL XXXX ) is on file with Current. Current 's denial conclusion states that these transactions were 'authorized by me " following a review of 'transaction history, merchant data, and indicators of account compromise. ' This conclusion can not be reconciled with the mandatory XXXX enforcement that governs this merchant. Either : ( a ) the merchant 's XXXX system was compromised or spoofed, indicating account fraud ; or ( b ) Current 's investigation failed to account for the merchant 's XXXX requirements. In either case, the denial is wrong. Ground 2 : Pattern of Fraud Volume and Repetition The XXXX XXXX disputes represent more than 20 separate transactions over three days ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) totaling over {$710.00}. No legitimate consumer makes 20+ identical transactions to a single gambling merchant in 72 hours. This pattern is a XXXX of unauthorized account access or credential theft, not authorized consumer spending. Current 's investigation failed to flag or adequately weigh this pattern. Ground 3 : Secured Card Consumer 's Own Funds at Risk Current 's XXXX card is a secured credit product in which I deposited my own money as collateral. Current extends that money back as a credit line. Current bears XXXX financial exposure during any dispute my deposit fully covers their risk. Despite this, Current denied provisional credit during the investigation and is now reinstating denied dispute amounts to my balance, effectively requiring me to pay for fraudulent transactions out of my own deposited funds while their investigation produced an incorrect outcome. Ground 4 : Contradictory Support Communications During in-app chat support on XX/XX/XXXX, a Current representative simultaneously ( a ) confirmed that provisional credits were visible and pending in my account, and ( b ) stated that provisional credit is not eligible for these disputes. These statements are mutually contradictory and reflect either inadequate agent training or deliberate misrepresentation. This interaction has been documented and is available upon request. Relief Requested I respectfully request that the CFPB : Investigate Current 's fraud dispute investigation process, specifically their failure to account for mandatory XXXX verification requirements applicable to XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX platforms. Require Current to reverse the denials of disputes XXXX ( {$610.00} ), XXXX ( {$25.00} ), and XXXX ( {$75.00} ) and issue credits to my account. Examine whether Current 's bulk denial of fraud disputes without adequate XXXX analysis constitutes an unfair, deceptive, or abusive act or practice ( UDAAP ) under the Dodd-Frank Act. Examine the structural consumer protection gap in secured credit card products, where consumers bear immediate cash loss from fraud with neither Regulation E provisional credit protections nor adequate fraud investigation standards. I have attached the following documentation : all dispute confirmation letters, all denial letters, and screenshots of in-app chat support communications. I have also emailed XXXX requesting the written explanation used in their investigation determination, as stated in their denial letters, and have received no response. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, IL XXXX Enclosures : Dispute confirmation letters ( PDF ), denial letters ( PDF ), in-app chat screenshots

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation