Consumer complaint received 2025-12-24 00:00:00
Product: Credit card — General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Problem with a purchase shown on your statement — Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement
Company: ROBINHOOD MARKETS INC.
State: VA

Complaint narrative:
Date and location of incident : On XX/XX/year>, at approximately XXXX XXXX, the incident occurred in the parking lot of the XXXX XXXX grocery store located at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. 

What was represented : My wife was initially approached by a XXXX XXXX XXXX in the parking lot. He represented that he had permission from the XXXX XXXX XXXX to raise money for a XXXX benefiting a family that had lost a child in a car accident. My wife offered to donate {$20.00} in cash. The individual stated that cash could not be accepted and that donations had to be processed via debit or credit card using the XXXX service. 

My wife informed him that she did not have the XXXX application installed on her XXXX. He advised that she could access the XXXX website instead. At that point, XXXX additional XXXX males approached and stood nearby, presenting themselves as supporting the fundraiser. My wife was then asked to complete forms requesting her name and email address. 

How the card was used/ possession of card and phone : As my wife explained to the XXXX XXXX Police Department XXXX, she was asked to complete multiple forms and was told this was required so that each individual involved could receive credit for the fundraiser. These repeated form requests functioned as a distraction tactic, intentionally prolonging the interaction. 

During this time, the initial XXXX male took possession of my XXXX XXXX so that she could fill out the requested forms and so that he could process the {$20.00} donation through the XXXX website, since she did not have the XXXX application installed. At the same time, he also had possession of her Robinhood Gold Credit Card, which she had provided solely for the purpose of making the {$20.00} donation. 

While in possession of both the phone and the card, the individual processed XXXX unauthorized {$2000.00} transactions. My wife did not initiate, approve, or authorize any transaction beyond a single {$20.00} donation. 

Authorized amount vs. charged amount : My wife authorized a single {$20.00} donation. Instead, XXXX separate charges of {$2000.00} each were processed without authorization. These transactions were not consistent with the represented purpose of the interaction and were processed while the individual had temporary possession of both the card and phone. The rapid, back-to-back nature of the charges further supports that these transactions were not intentional or authorized. 

Method of processing ( clarified ) : Because the individual had possession of both the card and the phone at the same time, it remains unclear whether the unauthorized charges were processed through Square, another payment application, the Square website, my wifes XXXX, her Robinhood Gold Credit Card directly, or a different method altogether. This uncertainty is a direct result of the deceptive circumstances and temporary control exercised by the individual over both devices. 

Fraud alerts and declines : Both {$2000.00} charges to the merchant XXXX XXXX were initially declined as suspected fraud by Robinhood. As the Organizer of the Family Account associated with the Robinhood Gold Credit Card service, I received real-time fraud alert notifications through the Robinhood application, and the transaction history reflected the charges as declined. These notifications occurred at approximately XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 

In addition, I received XXXX separate email notifications on XX/XX/year>, stating that the {$2000.00} charges to XXXX XXXX were declined. All related notifications and records have been retained. 

Subsequent posting of charges and immediate actions taken : Despite the fraud declines, the XXXX {$2000.00} charges later appeared as posted transactions on the account. The dispute to the posted charges was initiated on XX/XX/year>, which was within hours of the initial unauthorized charges that occurred on XX/XX/year>, at approximately XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX reflecting prompt action upon discovery and reliance on Robinhoods fraud alerts.

I later confirmed through a text message conversation with Robinhood on XX/XX/year>, that the dispute claim had been opened on XX/XX/year>. During that conversation, a Robinhood representative named XXXX confirmed that the charges had been removed from the account. This confirmation further reinforced our understanding that the fraudulent charges had been successfully addressed following the initial declines and dispute submission. 

Given the prompt dispute submission, it is unclear why the party that initially declined the transactions did not stop the funds from being released to the fraudulent party. 

I would like to add I preferred to call Robinhood on XX/XX/year>, but as I have learned throughout this process there only contact methods are email or text, which i believe is very concerning for a issue of this size. I will provide Robinhood 's contact information below.

Robinhoods determination : Robinhood ultimately denied the dispute. During the review, Robinhood initially classified the matter as a counterfeit card transaction. I corrected this characterization and explained that the issue was not counterfeit card use, but unauthorized transactions involving materially different amounts than what was authorized. 

The denial appears to rely on the assertion that my wife authorized the transaction and retained possession of the card. This conclusion ignores the fact that : My wife authorized a single {$20.00} donation She did not authorize XXXX {$2000.00} charges The individual had temporary possession of both the card and phone Fraud controls were triggered and the transactions were declined Authorization of a card does not constitute authorization of materially different transaction amounts. 

I have formally requested that Robinhood provide the written denial explanation and the card-network dispute reason code used to deny this chargeback, but this information has not been provided. In addition, I am requesting that Robinhood be required to explain why its systems initially declined both {$2000.00} transactions as suspected fraud, yet later approved and released the funds to the merchant despite those fraud determinations and a timely dispute. To date, no explanation has been provided for this inconsistency. 

Reliance on fraud notifications and confirmations : Based on the real-time declined transaction notifications, email confirmations, and written confirmation from Robinhood that the charges had been removed, we reasonably believed the fraudulent charges had been blocked and resolved. Had we known the charges could later be processed and denied for reimbursement, our response and urgency would have been significantly more aggressive. 

Requested resolution : Full reversal and refund of the XXXX unauthorized {$2000.00} charges. 

Summary of additional actions taken : At Robinhoods direction, I contacted XXXX and escalated the issue to a supervisor. I was informed that XXXX could not resolve the matter and that it must be handled by the card issuer. 

I have filed a police report with the XXXX XXXX Police Department, Report XXXX XXXX, and there is an ongoing investigation related to this incident. XXXX XXXX, who is leading the investigation, has advised that he will also be contacting us as part of the ongoing case. 

This matter is part of a broader, active fraud investigation by the XXXX XXXX Police Department involving similar incidents. The department has publicly requested assistance in connection with this investigation, as reported by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Given the denial of the dispute, the deceptive circumstances, the fraud declines, and the failure to prevent funds from being released despite timely notification, I am submitting this complaint to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to request review by Robinhoods compliance and legal teams. Consumers reasonably expect that transactions declined for suspected fraud, promptly disputed, and confirmed as removed will not later be processed and charged to their account. 

Robinhood 's Contact Information : Website - XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation