Consumer complaint received 2026-01-22 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Managing an account — Deposits and withdrawals
Company: U.S. BANCORP
State: MO

Complaint narrative:
I am submitting this complaint regarding U.S. Banks handling of a fraud claim involving unauthorized electronic fund transfers, reversal of provisional credit, and improper handling of a compromised account. I believe U.S. Banks actions are inconsistent with the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E. 

On XX/XX/XXXX ( XXXX XXXX ) at approximately XXXXXXXX XXXX., I received a phone call from a number that displayed on my caller ID as U.S. Bank. The caller claimed to be from U.S. Banks fraud department and stated that there may have been fraudulent activity on my account. The caller referenced example transactions and asked me to confirm whether I had authorized them. I clearly stated that I had not authorized those transactions.

The caller then stated that a link would be sent so I could mark the transactions as fraudulent. Because the caller ID displayed U.S. Bank and the caller referenced accurate information related to my account, I reasonably believed the communication was legitimate. I clicked the link, which I later learned allowed unauthorized access to my online banking credentials.

As a direct result of this impersonation and caller ID spoofing, funds were withdrawn from both my checking and savings accounts. These electronic fund transfers were not authorized by me and were the result of fraud.

Later that same afternoon, after initially reporting the fraud, I logged into my account and discovered the funds had already been removed. I immediately contacted U.S. Bank using its official XXXX customer service number. A representative confirmed the activity was fraudulent and instructed me to freeze the account and take steps to prevent further unauthorized transfers. 

On the next business day, I went to a U.S. Bank branch and followed the instructions provided to secure my accounts. I was advised that the compromised account would no longer be used and that a new account would be opened. Based on these representations, I reasonably believed the original account had been closed or permanently restricted. I filed a fraud claim, and U.S. Bank issued provisional credit totaling {$5000.00} in accordance with Regulation E. At that time, I reasonably believed U.S. Bank was conducting a good-faith investigation. 

On or about XX/XX/XXXX, I received a letter stating that U.S. Bank determined the transactions were authorized and that the {$5000.00} provisional credit would be reversed. This conclusion is incorrect and unsupported by the facts. 

At no time did I authorize : The electronic fund transfers Disclosure of my online banking credentials Any transfer of funds to any third party Under Regulation E, a transaction induced by fraud, impersonation, or deception does not constitute an authorized electronic fund transfer. U.S. Banks determination improperly shifts liability to the consumer despite clear evidence of social engineering and impersonation fraud.

Additionally, at the time U.S. Bank reversed the provisional credit, I reasonably believed the compromised account had been closed or permanently restricted based on the banks instructions. Without my clear consent or authorization, U.S. Bank reactivated or otherwise used the compromised account to debit {$5000.00}. This account then became visible again in my mobile banking app.

I subsequently received notice that this account would incur overdraft fees if the funds were unavailable. To avoid additional financial harm caused by U.S. Banks actions, I was forced to deposit {$5000.00} into an account I did not consent to reactivate or reuse.

I have filed an appeal with U.S. Bank requesting a second investigation and have also filed a police report. I have supporting documentation, including screenshots showing the caller ID displaying U.S. Bank, the provisional credit reversal letter, and evidence of the account becoming active again.

U.S. Banks actions appear inconsistent with Regulation Es consumer protections, including requirements related to unauthorized electronic fund transfers, provisional credit, and good-faith investigations. The lack of clarity regarding account status and the debiting of funds without clear consumer consent compounds the harm.

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