Consumer complaint received 2025-11-12 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Other banking product or service
Issue: Managing an account — Problem using a debit or ATM card
Company: BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
This is a supplemental complaint related to the previous complain ID XXXXI am submitting this formal rebuttal regarding my Bank of America fraud claim ( Claim # XXXX ). The bank issued two denial letters that are nearly identical, both failing to address my submitted evidence and lacking any substantive investigation in violation of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA, 15 U.S.C. 1693 et seq. ) and Regulation E ( 12 CFR 1005 ).

1. Failure to Conduct a Reasonable Investigation Both denial letters contain only generic statements claiming the transaction was completed using a device consistent with previous valid account activity. No technical evidencesuch as IP address, device ID, or geolocation datawas provided. Under Regulation E ( 1005.11 ( b ) ( 1 ) ), a financial institution must conduct a reasonable investigation and provide a written explanation of findings. Copy-pasted conclusions do not meet this standard.

2. Ignored Evidence of SIM Swap Fraud I provided clear documentation proving my XXXX XXXX phone number was fraudulently ported to another SIM card before the transaction occurred. The authentication code was intercepted by criminals, not by me. Thus, the claim that the transaction was authorized via a valid phone number is false. 

3. Invalid Authentication and EFTA Protection Under EFTA 1693g ( a ) and CFPB Official Interpretation 1005.2 ( m ) -2, a transaction is unauthorized if access credentials were obtained through fraud ( such as a SIM swap ). SMS-based authentication does not constitute valid authorization when the device is compromised. 

4. Failure to Detect Red-Flag Activity Prior to the {$8000.00} wire on XXXX XXXX XXXX ( executed at XXXXXXXX XXXX  ), the fraudster performed multiple suspicious actions : password reset, adding a new wire recipient, enabling Apple Pay, and repeatedly accessing my account. These were obvious indicators of account takeover that Bank of America failed to act upon, violating the FTC Red Flags Rule ( 16 CFR 681.2 ).

5. Delayed Response and Customer Harm Around XXXXXXXX XXXX, within XXXX minutes of the transaction, I began calling Bank of America to report the incident. I was repeatedly placed on hold and transferred between departments. This delay prevented timely freezing of my account, directly increasing the loss. A customer should not bear financial responsibility for the banks inefficient response system. 

6. Lack of Accountability Despite submitting police and FTC reports, I have never been assigned a dedicated representative to handle my case. This lack of direct contact further hindered communication and resolution.

The investigation by Bank of America appears cursory and incomplete. Both denial letters are nearly identical and fail to address the evidence I submitted. I respectfully request that the CFPB require Bank of America to reopen the case, conduct a full forensic review ( including IP, device, and geolocation data ), and reimburse the {$8000.00} in compliance with EFTA 1693f and Regulation E 1005.11.

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