Consumer complaint received 2021-05-29 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Managing an account — Problem using a debit or ATM card
Company: BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
Beginning in XXXX of 2021 an unknown individual allegedly accessed our debit card information to the extent needed to make online purchases. The purchases made were all in values < {$75.00}, and often < {$40.00}. All purchases made were from a single vendor ; XXXX. Based on the frequency of these transactions relative to our deposits, as well as my wifes use of the debit card for internet purchases, these transactions appear to have gone undetected by Bank of America and us. These undetected and fraudulent charges continued until the total balance of the checking account appeared lower than usual. Upon inspection of the checking account via online banking app, we noticed numerous payments in the preceding days made to XXXX. Upon confirming these were unknown purchases, we reviewed all of XXXX transactions and XXXX statement. This brief review revealed the prolific and persistent nature of small but frequent fraudulent charges made to XXXX. Upon discovery, we immediately notified Bank of America in the late evening hours of Wednesday, XXXX. While on the phone with BOA, they confirmed that beginning in XXXX over 79 transactions had been made with XXXX, with debit payments totaling {$2800.00}. We were unaware of any fraudulent transactions predating XXXX until this point. While on the phone with BOA, the BOA representative confirmed a few unrelated transactions with us to verify they werent fraudulent, as well. We confirmed that the only fraudulent charges appear to be those to XXXX. We also explicitly confirmed with the BOA representative that we have had absolutely no prior business with XXXX. It wasnt until the name was revealed in our review that we knew the company, a web hosting service, even existed. 

After having filed the fraud claim, we began checking the status in BOAs mobile app. On the evening of Wednesday, XXXX, we noticed the claim had been closed, only noting not paid, and referring us to the desktop app for details in our message center. Confused and concerned, we checked the message center for clarification, only to find none. We then called BOA customer service only to find you cant inquire on existing claims during the evening hours, only make new claims. This left us with an ambiguous not paid decision absent of even a summary of findings. 

On the morning of Thursday, XX/XX/XXXX, We inquired with BOA for clarity on what not paid meant and what exactly the decision was, as there were still no messages or documents provided with a summary of findings. The BOA representative indicated that BOA did not decide in your favor for the following reasons ; 1. There was no attempt by any fraudsters to drain the account ; 2. There was no attempt to terminate transactions prior to XX/XX/XXXX ; and 3. The account holder made access to online banking during the timespan the transactions occurred We subsequently expressed our sincere discontent with their findings. It was apparent that no effort had been made beyond preparing their superficial justification they need to opt out of taking loss in lieu of supporting their customer. I explained to the BOA representative that online banking is accessed at least once per month to transfer money from checking to credit card each month. We further explained that we do not drill down into the checking account transactions unless the balance is unusually low or were making a larger purchase and want to know the available balance. Because of this, these smaller transactions went unnoticed. 

We also conveyed that the rationale of no attempt to drain the account is not a mechanism to define fraud, nor absolve BOA of responsibility. BOA customers have reassurance that theft prevention measures are in place, and the nature and dollar values here obviously fooled both affected parties. Diminishing this as not fraudulent because of the dollar value is the equivalent of assigning a tolerable dollar value of embezzlement, under which the act isnt embezzlement. 

BOA is not acting with integrity nor adapting their perception of fraud with the modern tactics in which criminals are committing it. Their failure to detect electronic fraud is not the fault of the consumer.

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 monetary relief