Consumer complaint received 2026-03-26 00:00:00
Product: Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service — Domestic (US) money transfer
Issue: Other transaction problem — 
Company: U.S. BANCORP
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
A copy has been sent to U.S. Bank via certified mail. RE : Consumer Complaint U.S. Bank / U.S. Bancorp Issue : Failure to Conduct Reasonable Investigation of BillPay Disputes Under Regulation E Product : Consumer/Business Banking XXXX Electronic Fund Transfers Total Amount : {$12000.00} Dear CFPB : I am filing this complaint against U.S. Bank ( U.S. Bancorp , National Association ) for its repeated failure to conduct a reasonable investigation of three XXXX disputes totaling {$12000.00}, in violation of its obligations under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ) and Regulation E ( 12 C.F.R. 1005 ). I have now exhausted U.S. Bank 's internal dispute process through two rounds of appeals. The bank 's denials have been procedurally deficient, factually unsupported, and inconsistent with federal law. DISPUTED TRANSACTIONS SUMMARY Claim ID XXXX Bill Pay XX/XX/XXXX {$11000.00} Denied Claim ID XXXX Bill Pay XX/XX/XXXX {$1000.00} Denied TOTAL DISPUTED : {$12000.00} COMPLAINANT INFORMATION XXXX XXXX | XXXX XXXX XXXX Phone : ( XXXX ) XXXX | Email : XXXX U.S. Bank Account Ending : XXXX BANK INFORMATION U.S. Bank National Association ( U.S. Bancorp ) XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, MN XXXX Disputes/Claims correspondence : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, MN XXXX NATURE OF THE COMPLAINT On XX/XX/XXXX and XXXX, XXXX, I made three XXXX payments totaling {$12000.00} to XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX for XXXX XXXX services. The contractor never delivered the contracted services, became unreachable, and is now the subject of 23 publicly disclosed XXXX complaints, has had its contractor 's license suspended, and appears insolvent. I filed XXXX disputes with U.S. Bank in a timely manner. U.S. Bank denied all three claims without meaningful investigation. I filed a formal first appeal on XX/XX/XXXX. U.S. Bank denied that appeal on XX/XX/XXXX again without substantive engagement with the evidence. This is now my second appeal, and I am simultaneously filing this regulatory complaint. WHY U.S. BANK 'S INVESTIGATION FAILED REGULATION XXXX 'S " REASONABLE INVESTIGATION '' STANDARD U.S. Bank 's own internal investigation worksheets produced in response to my XX/XX/XXXX records request demonstrate the bank performed no substantive verification steps : Proof of Payment Sent : NO on all three claims Address Confirmed with Setup : NO on all three claims Account Number Confirmed with Setup : NO on all three claims Conference Call Needed : YES flagged by U.S. Bank 's own system, but never conducted Regulation E requires a " reasonable investigation '' of reported errors. An investigation that verifies nothing, does not complete its own required steps does not meet this standard. U.S. Bank 's denial of my first appeal based on these same incomplete investigations compounded the violation. XXXX IS UNAMBIGUOUSLY COVERED BY REGULATION XXXX BillPay transactions initiated through a bank 's consumer-facing online banking platform are electronic fund transfers within the scope of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E. Unlike certain contested categories of transfer, BillPay has never been excluded from EFTA coverage . U.S. Bank 's denials do not appear to contest this rather, they appear to rely on an investigation-sufficiency defense that, as shown above, is contradicted by the bank 's own documents. The XX/XX/XXXX federal court ruling in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX further reinforces that consumer-initiated electronic fund transfers are entitled to the full protections of Regulation E, and that banks must conduct genuine, substantive investigations. CONTRACTOR FRAUD CONTEXT XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX has defrauded numerous homeowners across California. As of the date of this letter, the contractor 's XXXX license is suspended, 23 complaints are publicly disclosed, multiple complaints carry " Referred to Legal Action '' status ( forwarded to the California Attorney General ), and the company is unreachable. XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX have published investigative reports documenting these patterns. The XXXX 's Multiple Offender Unit has been specifically assigned to XXXX complaints. Additionally, XXXX U.S. Bank 's XXXX processor was unable to locate any records associated with my account or transactions during the investigation, raising concerns about processor-level failures in the dispute process. ATTACHMENTS All U.S. Bank denial letters ( original denials, first appeal denial dated XX/XX/XXXX ) U.S. Bank internal investigation worksheets dated XX/XX/XXXX ( Claims XXXX and XXXX ) First Appeal Letter dated XX/XX/XXXX Second Appeal Letter dated XX/XX/XXXX ( sent to U.S. Bank XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX transaction confirmations ( {$1000.00} XX/XX/XXXX ; {$11000.00} XX/XX/XXXX ) XXXX Complaint Disclosure page for License # XXXX ( XXXX complaints ) Construction contract with XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX investigative reports ( XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/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