Consumer complaint received 2026-03-29 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Savings account
Issue: Closing an account — Company closed your account
Company: BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
State: PA

Complaint narrative:
CFPB Complaint Bank of America , N.A . Company : Bank of America , N.A . Product : Checking or Savings Account Issue : Continued furnishing of materially inaccurate fraud designation in violation of FCRA XXXX ( b ), including failure to review contradictory institutional evidence from the issuing bank during reinvestigation Summary Bank of America has XXXX a Suspected Fraud Activity designation to XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX based on its unilateral classification of a deposited check as altered/fictitious. The issuing bank XXXX XXXX, XXXX. has provided signed, written confirmation on official letterhead that the check was legitimate, personally verified, and involved no fraud of any kind. Bank of America has been presented with this evidence through the formal dispute process and has twice declined to correct or delete the designation. This complaint requests regulatory intervention to compel correction of a demonstrably inaccurate record that has caused approximately XXXX year of concrete banking harm. Factual Background On or around XX/XX/XXXX, I deposited a {$10000.00} check drawn on a XXXX XXXX account into my Bank of America checking account. Bank of America subsequently : Reversed the deposited funds Classified the check as altered/fictitious Designated my account under Suspected Fraud Activity closed the account. Furnished the fraud designation to both XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX At no point was I contacted prior to the fraud classification. No investigation findings were shared with me. No opportunity to provide clarifying information was offered before the designation was furnished. Dispute History First Round of Disputes I filed formal disputes with both XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX challenging the accuracy of the fraud designation. Both agencies notified Bank of America and conducted reinvestigations. In each instance, Bank of America verified the fraud designation as accurate. The reporting remained unchanged. XXXX XXXX Confirmation on XX/XX/XXXX, I obtained a signed, written letter on official XXXX XXXX XXXX from a named, XXXX branch XXXX. The letter states unequivocally that : XXXX. The check was legitimate XXXX. It was personally written, verified, and signed by their account holder XXXX. The account holder was authenticated in person at the branch XXXX. The check was not altered or fictitious in any way XXXX. No fraud occurred in connection with the instrument The letter further states directly : Bank of America reversed the transaction and informed XXXX He that the check was returned under the classification altered/fictitious and treated as suspected fraud. This is incorrect. This is not an ambiguous XXXX attestation. It is a direct, institutional contradiction from the bank on which the check was drawn of the specific factual basis for XXXX XXXX XXXX fraud designation. XXXX Dispute with XXXX The XXXX XXXX letter was submitted as part of a second formal dispute filed with XXXX. Under 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 2 ), XXXX was required to forward all relevant information submitted with the dispute including the XXXX letter to Bank of America as the furnisher. On XX/XX/XXXX XXXX days after the XXXX letter was issued, and after Bank of America received notice of this XXXX dispute along with the supporting documentation Bank of America again verified the fraud designation as accurate and complete. The record remains unchanged as of the date of this complaint. Legal Basis FCRA 1681s-2 ( b ) Duties Upon Notice of Dispute Upon receiving notice of a consumer dispute from a consumer reporting agency, a furnisher is required under 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) ( 1 ) to : ( A ) Conduct an investigation with respect to the disputed information, reviewing all relevant information provided by the consumer reporting agency pursuant to 1681i ( a ) ( 2 ) ; ( B ) Report the results of the investigation to the consumer reporting agency ; ( C ) If the investigation finds the information to be incomplete or inaccurate, report those results to all consumer reporting agencies to which the information was furnished ; and ( D ) If the disputed information is found to be inaccurate or incomplete or can not be verified, modify, delete, or permanently block the reporting of that information. XXXX XXXX XXXX Failure XXXX XXXX XXXX conduct fails the statutory standard on multiple grounds : XXXX. Failure to review all relevant information. The XXXX XXXX letter constitutes the most directly relevant evidence possible a signed institutional confirmation from the issuing bank that the check was legitimate and that XXXX XXXX XXXX classification was incorrect. If Bank of America reviewed this letter and still verified the fraud designation, its investigation was unreasonable. If it did not review the letter, it failed to satisfy 1681s-2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A ) entirely. XXXX. No reasonable investigation could sustain this result. The fraud designation rests on a single factual claim : that the deposited check was altered/fictitious. The institution that issued the check has confirmed in writing that it was not. There is no countervailing evidence in the record. A reinvestigation that arrives at the same conclusion without addressing this direct contradiction is not a reinvestigation it is a rubber stamp. XXXX. Pattern of procedural non-engagement. Bank of America has now verified this designation on at least XXXX occasions twice through XXXX and once through XXXX XXXX XXXX without, to my knowledge, ever contacting XXXX XXXX to verify the status of the instrument, requesting clarification from me, or providing any substantive explanation for its continued classification. This pattern is consistent with an automated re-verification process that does not meaningfully engage with submitted evidence, which multiple federal courts have found insufficient under 1681s-2 ( b ). See, e.g., XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) ( a furnisher may not simply verify its own records without considering the consumers evidence ). XXXX. Willful noncompliance. Bank of America is a sophisticated institutional furnisher with actual knowledge of its FCRA obligations. Its decision to re-verify a fraud designation after receiving a signed, written contradiction from the issuing bank reflects either a knowing disregard of its statutory duty to review all relevant information, or a reckless indifference to that duty. Either satisfies the standard for willful noncompliance under 15 U.S.C. 1681n. See XXXX XXXX. XXXX of XXXX. XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX ) ( willfulness includes reckless disregard of statutory duty ). Harm The continued furnishing of this inaccurate fraud designation has caused concrete, ongoing harm over approximately XXXX year : -Denial of new bank account applications at multiple financial institutions, directly attributable to the XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX records -Complete loss of access to standard consumer banking services, forcing reliance on alternative and less secure financial arrangements -Reputational damage to my consumer banking profile, with effects that will persist until the record is corrected -Time and financial cost of repeated disputes, evidence gathering, and correspondence none of which has resulted in any substantive engagement from Bank of America Requested Resolution I request that the CFPB compel Bank of America , N.A . to : 1. Conduct a genuine reinvestigation that substantively engages with the written confirmation provided by XXXX XXXX and provides a documented explanation if it continues to disagree with the issuing banks determination XXXX. Complete deletion all fraud-designated reporting furnished to XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and any other consumer reporting agency to which the designation was reported XXXX. Provide written confirmation to me and to each affected consumer reporting agency that the fraud designation has been removed and that the record has been updated to reflect accurate information Documents Attached XXXX. XXXX XXXX written confirmation letter ( XX/XX/XXXX ) XXXX. XXXX reinvestigation result confirming XXXX XXXX XXXX re-verification ( XX/XX/XXXX ) XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX reinvestigation result XXXX. Prior dispute correspondence submitted to Bank of America XXXX. Chronological timeline of full dispute history Closing Bank of America has had multiple opportunities across multiple consumer reporting agencies, over nearly XXXX months to correct a record that the issuing bank has confirmed in writing is inaccurate. It has declined each time. The most recent re-verification occurred after institutional contradictory evidence was submitted through the formal dispute channel that the FCRA specifically requires furnishers to review. This is not a close call. The check was legitimate. The issuing bank has said so in writing. XXXX XXXX XXXX continued reporting of a fraud designation it knows or should know to be inaccurate is a violation of federal law, and it is causing ongoing, measurable harm. I am requesting regulatory intervention because the dispute process the mechanism XXXX created for exactly this situation has failed.

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 non-monetary relief