Consumer complaint received 2025-06-01 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Managing an account — Funds not handled or disbursed as instructed
Company: SOFI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
State: PA

Complaint narrative:
This letter serves as a formal response to your denial of my recent dispute concerning unauthorized transactions on my SoFi account. Your explanation fails to satisfy the requirements imposed under Regulation E ( 12 CFR 1005.11 ) and exposes a pattern of regulatory noncompliance and procedural neglect. 

Your repeated use of boilerplate language, paired with selective and misleading application of federal law, does not constitute a lawful resolution. Let me address your justification point by pointbecause not only is it insufficient, its dangerously close to willful negligence : 1. SMS and In-App Positive Responses You rely on the fact that a response was received from a device associated with my account. This is not proof of my consentparticularly if the device was compromised. Federal law does not equate device activity with user authorization, especially when a consumer reports the transaction as unauthorized. 

Unless you can provide conclusive evidence that I personally authorized the transaction, this is a legally invalid foundation for denial. 

2. Lost/Stolen Device Timing You suggest a discrepancy in the timing of my lost/stolen device report. That is entirely irrelevant. Regulation E does not allow financial institutions to deny claims based on assumptions or subjective timing concerns. I reported the transaction within the legally required timeframe. You are legally obligated to prove the transaction was authorizednot infer legitimacy based on flawed logic. 

3. No Abnormal Login Activity Your claim that no abnormal login behavior was found is neither sufficient nor compelling. The absence of suspicious patterns does not prove authorization. If the device was compromised, used while logged in, or subject to credential theft, such activity could appear normal on your systems. That is precisely why Regulation E existsto protect consumers from sophisticated fraud even when it mimics legitimate activity. 

4. Funding of Account Prior to Transaction You state that I funded my account prior to the transaction, and from that you infer an expectation of the transaction. This is a baseless assumption. Funding an account is not a green light for SoFi or any merchant to process a transaction of this magnitude. This line of reasoning is flimsy, unsupported, and has no grounding in Regulation E or established consumer protection standard 5. Established Merchant Relationship You point to a past {$50.00} transaction as justification for approving a {$5000.00} charge. That argument is, frankly, absurd. Prior small-dollar activity does not constitute preauthorization of a high-value transaction, especially one of a drastically different scale. This reasoning is deceptive and in direct violation of your duty to investigate and assess each transaction on its own merits. 

6. Your Misuse of Regulation E and Provisional Credit Timelines You conveniently reference the business-day timeline for provisional credit under Regulation E, while ignoring the rest of your obligations. Regulation E also mandates that you : Conduct a reasonable and good-faith investigation ( 12 CFR 1005.11 ( c ) ( 1 ) ) ; Determine whether the error occurred based on concrete evidence, not speculative circumstantial indicators ; Provide written findings and supporting documentation used to justify the decision ( 12 CFR 1005.11 ( d ) ). 

Referencing one subsection of the law while blatantly disregarding the rest is not complianceit is regulatory evasion At this point, it is abundantly clear that SoFi Bank is attempting to deny my claim using manufactured justifications and partial readings of the law, rather than conducting a real investigation. Let me remind you once again : The burden of proof under Regulation E lies entirely with the financial institutionnot the consumer. 
If you can not prove I authorized the transaction, you are required by law to treat it as unauthorized. 

I expect a full, documented response explaining how your findings comply with the totality of your obligations under Regulation Enot cherry-picked excerpts. This is your opportunity to correct what is quickly becoming a textbook example of improper dispute handling.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation