Consumer complaint received 2026-05-29 00:00:00
Product: Credit card — General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Problem with a purchase shown on your statement — Card was charged for something you did not purchase with the card
Company: BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
I am filing a formal complaint regarding Bank of Americas denial of my credit card fraud claim. This dispute concerns multiple unauthorized in-person transactions dated XX/XX/year>, which were processed in Arizona and Georgia while I was physically located in California at the time of the transactions. At the time of the disputed activity, I was present in XXXX XXXX, California, specifically at XXXX XXXX XXXX and dining at food court with XXXX XXXX XXXX pickup ordered on XXXX XXXX, with supporting purchase records and location history evidence confirming my physical presence. I immediately received fraud alerts during this time and contacted Bank of America without delay to report the unauthorized transactions. Bank of America subsequently denied my claim, citing chip authentication and/or PIN or signature verification as the basis for determining authorization. However, I would like to clarify the following : -This is a credit card account, and I did not use or authorize any PIN for these transactions. -I did not sign or physically authorize any of the disputed transactions. -My physical credit card remained in my possession at all times and was never lost, stolen, or shared with anyone. In addition, even after Bank of America reissued a replacement card following my fraud report, I have continued to retain possession of the original physical card. At no point did the original card leave my control or custody. The denial appears to rely solely on the fact that the transactions were processed as card-present chip transactions. However, chip authentication alone does not establish that the legitimate cardholder was physically present, particularly in cases involving counterfeit or cloned cards. Additionally, the transactions occurred in multiple states ( Arizona and Georgia ) within the same timeframe that I was physically present in California. This presents an impossible location scenario that is inconsistent with authorized card usage. The investigation outcome does not provide sufficient transparency regarding the underlying evidence used to support the determination of authorization, including but not limited to : -Merchant terminal identification and location data -Chip transaction cryptogram or authentication validation -Method of card presentation ( chip insertion vs. fallback transaction ) -Signature verification records, if applicable Given these inconsistencies, I believe the investigation was incomplete or did not adequately consider the possibility of counterfeit or cloned card fraud. Accordingly, I respectfully request : -A full reinvestigation of all disputed transactions -Disclosure of the transaction-level and terminal-level evidence used to support the denial -A review specifically for counterfeit or cloned card activity -A written explanation detailing the factual and technical basis for the determination of authorization Thank you for your review of this matter.

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