Consumer complaint received 2021-05-08 00:00:00
Product: Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service — Mobile or digital wallet
Issue: Confusing or missing disclosures — 
Company: U.S. BANCORP
State: IN

Complaint narrative:
This is not a duplicate complaint. I have been informed of new information regarding US bank and its violations of the EFTA and its misrepresentation of its affiliation with XXXX which caused me a loss of {$200.00} on XX/XX/XXXX. 

Although I followed all steps required by the EFTA, US bank provided false information numerous times regarding its responsibilities and affiliation with XXXX to avoid honoring its obligations under the EFTA and its own " Digital Security Guarantee '' In short, I paid someone I knew using XXXX. That person I knew had their XXXX account hacked ( where we were communicating ) and as a result, redirected the funds I sent to someone I know, to a scammer. This should be protected under the EFTA and the Digital Security Guarantee, but US bank is claiming it has no affiliation with XXXX and that the matter is a civil matter. 

This is a violation of the EFTA and I intend to continue to escalate this matter if necessary, not only to the media, given Us bank actually owns XXXX and is providing intentionally false information to harmed consumers, but also because US bank is required, under federal law, to either provide proper disclosures which it did not, or provide fraud protection. 

BACKGROUND On XX/XX/XXXX I downloaded XXXX and sent money to a friend. Someone I know. 
within 5 minutes, we were informed that our friend 's XXXX account was hacked and that someone redirected our funds. 

This information is documented with XXXX and the police and although we have offered this information US bank has declined to review it. 

I called US bank within 5 minutes and they refused to stop the transaction.

Under the EFTA, when a consumer provides prompt notice, the bank is required to act swiftly. 

Instead, we were told that they don't have anything to do with XXXX and we'd have to wait and contact XXXX when they opened the next day because XXXX doesn't actually have a fraud department. 

This was a lie. 

XXXX is owned by Early Warning Payments, which is owned by 7 large banks, including US Bank. 

This intentional misrepresentation by the bank harmed us. 

ANd it continued to misrepresent its affiliation with XXXX. 

We contacted XXXX the next day, and they stated we needed to handle the dispute through our bank. Again, US bank lied and misled us. These precious hours could have been used to stop the funds, given we made notice within 5 minutes. 

In its response to the CFPB complaint I initially made on XX/XX/2021, it made no disclosure that it actually owns XXXX. 

In fact, it made no required disclosures under Reg E The fact that it owns XXXX, requires it to adhere to Reg E. ( EFTA ) Reg. E provides that the disclosures be clear and readily understandable, in writing, and in a form the consumer may keep.... These disclosures can be delivered in electronic form, but the financial institution must comply with the requirements for electronic signature, including the consumer consent rules. These initial disclosures must be made at the time a consumer contracts for an electronic fund transfer service or before the first electronic fund transfer is made. 

Not only did US Bank not make a clear disclosure that it OWNS XXXX, at the time I signed up for the payment system, I receive NO disclosures for signature and nothing in a form that I could keep. 

US bank violated the EFTA disclosure requirements, in addition to its ongoing misrepresentation of its affiliation with XXXX. 

In fact, no where on US bank 's consumer dashboard does it disclose its affiliation with XXXX. And when I spoke with MULTIPLE employees, including two managers, all informed me " We are not XXXX '' Since XXXX 's launch, it has tripled fraud losses to consumers. TRIPLED them. I asked myself why my bank would offer a payment system structured under a third party name and then misrepresent its affiliation ... the answer seems clear to me : it is trying to avoid covering losses it is required to cover under the EFTA and pushing consumers to use this payment system instead of their USBank options so they can avoid losses and pass them onto the consumer. 

This is the only conclusion I can make given the false information US bank has provided, the intentional misrepresentations it has made in multiple formats including its consumer banking dashboard, its product pages on its websites, its emails and through its customer service representatives. 

US bank should be investigated and if I can not get this resolved through this channel I will continue to escalate this matter until something is done about this fraudulent scheme.

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