Consumer complaint received 2026-04-22 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: B9, Inc.
State: OR

Complaint narrative:
I am disputing multiple unauthorized international debit card transactions that posted to my account on XX/XX/year>. I did not authorize these transactions, did not add my card to any digital wallet, and did not receive any goods or services from the merchants involved. These transactions occurred in multiple different countries, yet several of them had identical or nearly identical amounts, which is a common indicator of cardtesting fraud. The merchants were unrelated and located in different regions, and the repeated amounts are not consistent with legitimate use. I immediately reported the charges to the bank and submitted a written dispute. After I sent my dispute letter, the bank restricted my account access, preventing me from viewing my transaction history or communicating through normal channels. This restriction occurred only after I challenged the transactions, and it appears retaliatory. The bank did not conduct a proper investigation as required under Regulation E. Instead of contacting the merchants or obtaining documentation showing authorization, delivery of goods, or proof of benefit, the bank relied solely on internal tokenprovisioning screenshots. These logs do not prove that I authorized the transactions, do not show merchant responses, and do not demonstrate that I received anything of value. The only letter the bank sent me was written in an accusatory tone, implying that I had added my card to a digital wallet and authorized the transactions. This is not true, and the bank provided no evidence to support this claim. The letter did not include any merchant documentation, did not explain how they reached their conclusion, and did not meet Regulation Es requirement for a written explanation with supporting evidence. When I asked the bank to contact the merchants or provide merchant documentation, they told me they do not have the merchants contact information because the transactions were international. This is not accurate. Banks have access to merchant contact channels through the card network and the acquiring bank. Claiming they lack merchant contact information is a known indicator of a deficient investigation. When I requested a proper investigation and asked for the documentation used in their decision, the bank also told me that they are not required to reinvestigate any claim that has been closed as denied. They then stated they would look at the matter again as a courtesy. This is misleading. Regulation E requires a bank to reopen or reconsider a claim when the consumer provides new information, disputes the adequacy of the investigation, or requests the evidence used in the decision. A reinvestigation is not a courtesy ; it is a legal requirement when the initial investigation was incomplete or noncompliant. I repeatedly requested the full investigation file, including merchant documentation, chargeback responses, fraud case notes, and any evidence used to deny my claim. The bank refused to provide these materials. They also failed to respond to my written dispute letter and did not address the issues I raised. These actions reflect several known weaknesses that XXXX banks are frequently cited for : - relying on internal token logs instead of merchant evidence - refusing to obtain documentation from the acquiring bank - claiming they do not have merchant contact information - failing to provide required written explanations- failing to provide copies of evidence used in the decision - restricting or blocking customer accounts after a dispute is filed - ignoring written disputes and failing to respond within required timelines - mischaracterizing unauthorized transactions as authorized without proof- incorrectly claiming they do not have to reinvestigate a denied claim - treating required compliance steps as courtesies The banks failure to investigate, failure to obtain merchant documentation, failure to provide required evidence, refusal to reinvestigate, and failure to respond to my written dispute violate Regulation Es requirements for timely investigation, written findings, and supporting documentation. I am requesting that the CFPB require the bank to conduct a complete and compliant investigation, provide all documentation used in their decision, restore my account access, and refund the unauthorized transactions.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation