Consumer complaint received 2025-07-08 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: UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION
State: AR

Complaint narrative:
I was the victim of impersonation fraud involving a {$1500.00} transfer from my USAA account to XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/year>, which posted on my USAA account XX/XX/year>. The recipient posed as a fellow XXXX under my command, using a stolen phone, personal contact information, and a XXXX XXXX account with his name. Believing I was helping someone I knew through a financial hardship ; I authorized the payment in good faithunaware that the request was fraudulent. 
I filed formal disputes with both XXXX XXXX and USAA. XXXX XXXX denied my claim after several days, stating that the transaction was completed using a device in my possession and that the funds originated externally from my bank account. I followed up by phone and was told any resolution must come from my financial institution. USAA initially issued a provisional refund, but later formally denied the dispute. In their written denial, USAA stated : Based on the information provided, weve determined an error didnt occur for the following reason : For this transaction, the service provider is responsible solely for the transfer of the funds. Since the funds were sent in exchange for goods and/or services to be provided by the recipient, and the funds were successfully moved, the dispute will need to be settled with the recipient directly. 
This characterization is inaccurate. The transaction was not a purchase of goods or servicesit was a personal transfer prompted by deception and impersonation. The scammer exploited my trust and position, using authentic contact details and communication style to manipulate me. I provided USAA with a digitally signed personal statement, screenshots of the impersonation, verified contact info, and a fraud timeline. Despite this documentation, USAA maintains that because I authorized the transaction, I bear the loss. 
Additionally, a XXXX XXXX who accompanied my XXXX reached out to inform me that my troop had been the victim of financial compromise, including drained bank accounts and maxed-out credit cards. However, he did not mention that the XXXX phone had been stolen. At the time, I was on vacation with my family in XXXX, Missouri. While managing personal obligations, I texted my XXXX to check in and offered financial support unprompted, believing the communication was genuine and the situation urgent. Without knowing his device and identity had been compromisedand given confirmation of hardshipI had no reason to suspect the messages were from an impersonator. This further reinforces that the authorization of the transaction was obtained under manipulated and deceptive circumstances. 
I was also told by multiple USAA representatives on XX/XX/year>, that while I could still submit a formal appeal and they are legally obligated to review it, the outcome would remain the same because the transaction occurred via XXXX XXXX and involved a scammer, even if impersonation was a factor. This type of preemptive discouragement undermines consumer protection and reinforces the need for proper oversight. I believe USAAs response misinterprets the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ), which is designed to protect consumers in cases of manipulated or fraudulent authorization. Had I known the individual requesting funds was not my troop, the transfer would never have occurred. The original authorization was obtained under deceptive conditions, which voids informed consent and falls under EFTA protections.

I respectfully request the CFPB to review this case. I am seeking the permanent
refund of the {$1500.00} and proper recognition that this transaction was executed under fraudulent and manipulated circumstancesand that the originating financial institution must bear responsibility under federal consumer law. 
Very respectfully, XXXX XXXX

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