Consumer complaint received 2026-04-21 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: NY

Complaint narrative:
I am filing a formal complaint against KeyBank regarding its handling of unauthorized recurring ACH debits from my account. Beginning in XX/XX/year>, a series of recurring ACH withdrawals in the amount of {$140.00} were debited from my account each month on or around the 10th, by a merchant listed as XXXX XXXX XXXX AP. These withdrawals continued consistently for approximately four years. I did not authorize these transactions and have no relationship with this company. Upon discovering the issue, I promptly contacted KeyBank to report the transactions as unauthorized. The bank closed my account and initiated a dispute. KeyBank denied reimbursement for the majority of the debits, citing a 60-day notification rule and asserting that no error occurred. This determination is conclusory, unsupported by evidence, and reflects a failure to conduct a reasonable investigation. This determination is conclusory, unsupported by evidence, and reflects a failure to conduct a reasonable investigation. Critically, KeyBanks response does not indicate that it : -Obtained or reviewed any ACH authorization -Requested proof of authorization from the originating merchant -Conducted any substantive analysis as to whether t he debits were authorized Instead, KeyBank relied exclusively on a procedural timing defense to deny the claim. Under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, a financial institution is required to conduct a good-faith and reasonable investigation of alleged errors. While notification timing may affect certain liability limitations, it does not eliminate the requirement that transactions be authorized in the first instance. Additionally, ACH network rules require that valid authorization be obtained and retained for all debits. To date, KeyBank has not produced, referenced, or confirmed the existence of any such authorization. KeyBanks position raises serious concerns : -It declared no error occurred without verifying authorization -It failed to perform a reasonable investigation into whether the debits were authorized -It relied on a timing technicality while disregarding whether the transactions were authorized This conduct also raises concerns under New York law XXXX By asserting that no error occurred without verifying whether the recurring debits were authorized, KeyBank provided a misleading and incomplete explanation of my rights as a consumer. This appears inconsistent with New York General Business Law 349, which prohibits deceptive acts and practices in consumer transactions. A reasonable consumer would expect that a bank claiming no error has verified whether the transactions were in fact authorized. Further, the failure to determine whether these debits were properly authorized raises concerns as to whether these transactions were properly payable under applicable law. I am formally requesting that KeyBank : -Produce the complete ACH authorization ( signed, recorded, or otherwise verifiable ) permitting XXXX XXXX XXXX AP to debit my account -Provide a detailed account of its investigation, including all steps taken to verify authorization -Reimburse all debits if valid authorization can not be produced If KeyBank is unable to produce valid authorization, its continued refusal to reimburse these transactions raises significant concerns regarding compliance with consumer protection obligations governing electronic fund transfers. I am requesting regulatory review of KeyBanks investigative practices and denial rationale.

Company response to consumer: Closed with monetary relief