Consumer complaint received 2025-12-30 00:00:00
Product: Credit card — General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Other features, terms, or problems — Other problem
Company: BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
State: NJ

Complaint narrative:
Dear Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, I am submitting this complaint regarding Bank of Americas improper denial of a dispute involving an {$8000.00} unauthorized transaction on my credit card account. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, when I first became aware of the transaction, it was still pending. I immediately contacted Bank of America and informed the representative that the charge was not authorized and was not made by me. During this call, I was explicitly told that the transaction had been canceled and I was reassured that it would not go through, as it was reported as unauthorized while still pending. 

Despite these clear assurances, Bank of America allowed the transaction to post to my account. 

I subsequently reopened the claim multiple times. Bank of America ultimately denied the dispute, stating that the transaction was made using one of my verified devices and relying on merchant documentation that allegedly includes a signature. That signature is not mine, and I dispute its authenticity. 

The transaction was initiated by my former partner, who had access to my device and financial information through deception and coercive circumstances. Bank of America is improperly equating device access with authorization, which does not meet the legal standard for an authorized transaction.

Bank of Americas handling of this matter appears inconsistent with the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ) and Regulation E, including but not limited to the following : Under Regulation E ( 12 CFR 1005.2 ( m ) ), an electronic fund transfer is unauthorized when initiated by a person without actual authority, even if access to a device or account was obtained.

I provided timely notice of the unauthorized transaction while it was still pending, triggering the banks duty to investigate and take appropriate action.

I relied on Bank of Americas explicit representation that the transaction was canceled and would not post. Allowing the charge to proceed after such representation constitutes bank error and misrepresentation. 

The denial relies on device association rather than evidence of actual consumer authorization. 

Bank of America failed to reasonably address the forged signature contained in the merchant documentation.

By denying this claim under these circumstances, Bank of America failed to conduct a Regulation Ecompliant investigation and failed to account for bank error arising from its initial assurances.

I am requesting that Bank of America : 1. Conduct a proper supervisory review compliant with Regulation E 2. Acknowledge the bank error and misrepresentation related to the assurance that the transaction was canceled 3. Reverse the {$8000.00} unauthorized transaction and make my account whole 4. Ensure that no negative credit reporting results from this disputed charge while it is under review I am attaching Bank of Americas denial letter dated XX/XX/year>, and I am prepared to provide a sworn affidavit confirming that the signature is not mine and that I did not authorize this transaction.

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 monetary relief