Consumer complaint received 2025-04-10 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: KEYCORP
State: MT

Complaint narrative:
On XXXX I sent Key Bank staff a disputed charge letter via email ( see attached ) about charges. They have failed to respond to me within XXXX  days. 

XXXX XXXX XXXX has made XXXX unauthorized EFT withdrawals each for {$39.00} between XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX from my checking account for services not received. And XXXX unauthorized EFT for $ XXXX $ XXXX {$18.00} On XX/XX/XXXX when their policy clearly states that there are no provisional credits given. 
If I updated my device XX/XX/XXXX from {$19.00} to {$39.00} on XX/XX/XXXX as XXXX XXXX states below, then why do all the charges add up to less than {$39.00}? XXXX {$38.00} not {$39.00} and why is it all split up? And why would someone upgrade a lost device? An unauthorized EFT is an EFT from a consumers account initiated by a person other than the consumer without actual authority to initiate the transfer and from which the consumer receives no benefit. 12 CFR1005.2 ( m ). 

I became aware of the charges after finally being able to review my bank account which has been neglected due to extremely difficult XXXX XXXX effecting my XXXX. After noticing the charges I contacted the company via email, which are attached, in an attempt to get a refund for charges for services not used. I explained to employees that the device that used the service was in fact not in operation since XX/XX/XXXX and that they can clearly see from the records that the device did not move, I did not log into my account, the device had 0 % battery life left, and in fact the device was lost due to ineffective product manufacturing. The device was lost because the magnet in the device did not hold, and customer service had no problem issuing a replacement device which means they accepted fault for the ineffective device. XXXX XXXX XXXX  Refund Policy states At XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX we offer a sellers XXXX limited warranty for all our products which allows you to service your purchase within that time period. In general, your purchase qualifies for the warranty service if manufacture defects are found or occurs within the stated warranty period ( normally XXXX  XXXX  Because the device was lost, it was unused. Previous to it being lost, it was used but at a monthly fee of {$19.00} from XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX. Then after deactivating the device due to it being lost, there was an odd split charge XX/XX/XXXX and after that the charge went up to $ XXXXWhy would anyone pay even the initial fee they were paying, $ XXXX for a lost device, let alone upgrade services to $ XXXX. Who pays for services for a device they are not using? Who doubles those payments. I explained there was a glitch in their system or something, and while the bookkeeper reversed the most recent charge of {$39.00} in XXXX, she refused to reverse any others. In an email attached she attaches a screenshot of the invoice initiating services at {$19.00}, yet in the email tries to say that the invoice shows I changed it to {$39.00}, which it does not. See below. I also can not get my card removed as a payment even though there are no active devices, and this is probably why they continued to charge my account without my authorization. I would like a dispute opened and a credit for each of the {$39.00} charges to my account and the split fee in XXXX totaling {$38.00}. 
XXXX XXXX XXXX Terms of Service policy states that customers are not allowed to sue them civilly or take any action without being liable for all of their attorney fees and other fees. In the event that a dispute is issued for any transaction, the card holder or individual submitting the order will be liable for but not be limited to any and all costs, fees, civil, legal, and administrative to settle such dispute. If an order placed with a credit card is disputed and by the credit issuer, we will seek collections by other means afforded to us in the State of XXXX  or any district selected by XXXX XXXX, XXXX regardless if they are found guilty or not, this is a violation of EFTA which includes an anti-waiver provision stating that [ n ] o writing or other agreement between a consumer and any other person may contain any provision which constitutes a waiver of any right conferred or cause of action created by [ EFTA ]. 15 U.S.C. 1693l. 
Although there may be circumstances where a consumer has provided actual authority to a third party under Regulation E according to 12 CFR 1005.2 ( m ), an agreement can not restrict a consumers rights beyond what is provided in the law, and any contract or agreement attempting to do so is a violation of EFTA.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation