Consumer complaint received 2026-04-30 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Managing an account — Problem using a debit or ATM card
Company: FIRST TECHNOLOGY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION
State: MA

Complaint narrative:
In late XX/XX/year>, I identified a series of unauthorized debit card transactions totaling approximately {$4100.00}, consisting of multiple charges between {$200.00} {$500.00} from merchants including XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX. I reported these transactions to DCU on or about XX/XX/year> and initiated disputes for the charges I did not authorize. On XX/XX/year>, DCU denied the majority of the disputes. On XX/XX/year>, DCU provided the documentation it relied upon, which consisted primarily of merchant-supplied summaries and basic account identifiers ( email address and phone number ). No transaction-level evidence demonstrating that I authorized the charges was provided. I specifically requested additional information, including : Login/session records tied to the transactions IP address and geolocation data Device or browser identification Authentication or verification records ( e.g., 2FA, passcode, biometric confirmation ) DCU confirmed that : IP and geographic data were not available Device/browser data were not available They do not independently obtain or validate merchant system records Despite the absence of any authentication or transaction-level evidence, DCU maintained that the transactions were authorized. I escalated the matter between XXXX XXXX XXXX to DCUs Member Resolution team. During that review : DCU upheld the denial of most transactions ( approximately {$4100.00} ) One transaction ( {$59.00} ) was credited without a clear explanation Additional transactions ( approximately {$850.00} ) remain pending In its final response on XX/XX/year>, DCU stated that : All documentation had already been provided No additional evidence exists Their determination was based on matching account identifiers, a claimed mobile wallet association, and prior account activity DCU also stated that it relied on undisputed transactions from other merchants to support its conclusion. However : These transactions were never identified, itemized, or provided They were not included in the dispute review I was given no opportunity to review or dispute them DCU has refused to : Provide transaction-specific evidence of authorization Explain why similar transactions were treated inconsistently Identify or substantiate the undisputed transactions used in its analysis Provide any authentication or device-level proof supporting its conclusions At this point, DCU has effectively admitted that its determination was made without transaction-level evidence demonstrating authorization, relying instead on generalized assumptions and undisclosed information. I believe this does not constitute a reasonable investigation under applicable requirements and raises serious concerns regarding the adequacy, transparency, and consistency of DCUs dispute resolution process. I am requesting regulatory review of DCUs handling of this matter and the basis for its determination.

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