Consumer complaint received 2025-10-27 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Problem with a lender or other company charging your account — Transaction was not authorized
Company: U.S. BANCORP
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
Re : Supplemental complaint regarding U.S. Bank National Association Prior CFPB Case No. XXXX This complaint supplements my prior CFPB case ( XXXX ) because U.S. Banks XX/XX/year> response contained inaccurate statements and omitted key facts and evidence regarding an unauthorized {$3400.00} ACH withdrawal from my U.S. Bank checking account XXXX XXXX XXXX. 

On XX/XX/year>, I revoked XXXXXXXX XXXX authorization to debit my account in writing. Despite that, U.S. Bank processed two unauthorized withdrawals ( {$330.00} and {$3400.00} ). The larger {$3400.00} withdrawal was processed on XXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/year> and cleared on XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX 

When I discovered the {$3400.00} debit on the morning of XX/XX/XXXX, I visited my local branch twice to file a dispute. 

* First visit ( XX/XX/XXXX ) : I was told I could not file a claim because the transaction had not yet posted. 
* Second visit ( XX/XX/XXXX ) : after the debit posted, I was told I could not file a claim because my account was labeled a business account. 

Both responses violated Regulation E ( 12 C.F.R. 1005.11 ( b ) ), which requires a financial institution to treat any notice of errororal or writtenas a valid dispute and begin its investigation immediately. The bank had an affirmative duty to record my report and start its process, not send me away. 

Although XXXX XXXX  classifies my account as a business account, it is used almost entirely for personal purposesmore than XXXX percent of its transactions are ordinary living expenses such as groceries, gas, and online personal purchases. Under 12 C.F.R. 1005.2 ( b ) ( 1 ), the account therefore qualifies as a consumer account protected by the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1693 et seq. ). 

After the branch refusals, I was contacted by XXXXXXXX XXXX and provided a phone number to call to file my dispute. I called that number and remained on hold for hours, during which an automated recording repeatedly advised me to hang up and call back later due to high call volume. I called again the next day, on XX/XX/XXXX, and experienced the same issue. When I finally reached a representative, they filed the claim on my behalf. Initially, XXXX XXXX  stated that they could not return the funds because the receiving bank reported that XXXX, XXXX claimed I had never withdrawn authorization. When I refused to accept that explanation, XXXX XXXX  changed its reasoning, claiming I had waited too long to fileonly one hour past an alleged 24-hour deadlinewhile disregarding my earlier in-person attempts to report the unauthorized withdrawal and the extraordinary difficulty I encountered reaching any representative by phone.

U.S. Bank repeatedly informed me that I had only 24 hours to dispute the withdrawala rule that does not exist under federal law. Regulation E gives consumers 60 days from the account-statement date to report unauthorized transfers. The banks next-day 5 p.m. deadline is fictitious and deprived me of t
he protections Congress intended .

I also have a recorded call with U.S. Bank dated XX/XX/year>, in which I discussed the {$3400.00} withdrawal with a bank representative. This directly contradicts the banks XX/XX/XXXX response to the CFPB stating, we were unable to locate an interaction of a request to file a claim for your transaction in the amount of {$3400.00}. In that same letter, the bank admits records reflect communications from XX/XX/XXXX onward, confirming I did contact them within their claimed timeframe.

U.S. Banks conduct constitutes XXXX XXXX Failure to accept and investigate a valid notice of unauthorized transfer ( 15 U.S.C. 1693f ; 12 C.F.R. 1005.11 ) XXXX XXXX Misrepresentation of consumer rights by imposing a non-existent 24-hour deadline XXXX XXXX  Misleading statements to the CFPB in its XX/XX/year> response ; and XXXX  Failure to maintain adequate dispute-handling procedures as required by NACHA Rules 2.3.2.2 and 2.4.

I request that the CFPB re-examine U.S. Banks handling of this matter, assess the accuracy of its prior submission, and refer the case to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency ( OCC ) for potential enforcement.

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