Consumer complaint received 2026-05-11 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Managing an account — Problem using a debit or ATM card
Company: WELLS FARGO & COMPANY
State: OR

Complaint narrative:
I am filing this new complaint based on documentation I received from Wells Fargo between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. The bank explicitly stated these were the documents used to deny our {$2000.00} debit card fraud claim. This amount was part of over {$8300.00} in unauthorized online transactions that occurred on XX/XX/XXXX. Contrary to the banks claims, these documents do not support and in several cases directly contradict the rationales given for denial. As detailed below, these deficiencies demonstrate that Wells Fargo failed to conduct a reasonable, good-faith investigation as required under Regulation E. FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE HOLISTICALLY The attached XXXX Police report ( Other_Docs, p. XXXX ) documents the unauthorized activity as a single fraud incident totaling over {$8000.00} on XX/XX/XXXX, and it was forwarded to the Criminal Investigations Division ( CID ) for review. In contrast, Wells Fargo split the reported fraud into two separate claims ( XXXX and XXXX ). The fraud alert text message my wife received on XX/XX/XXXX to which she replied No ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX was not present in the materials for either claim. This demonstrates that Wells Fargo omitted key evidence and failed to investigate the incident holistically, showing the overall investigation was not reasonable or conducted in good faith. SELECTIVE USE OF INFORMATION The documentation Wells Fargo provided for the denied claim XXXX is contained in the attachment titled XXXX, which also includes their denial letter ( XXXX XXXX XXXX. The denied claim involved disputed transactions from XXXX different merchants : XXXX and XXXX. Yet detailed transaction information for each merchant is conspicuously absent from most of the documentation. The XXXX merchants appear together on the same document only once ; each appears alone on XXXX additional document that does not include the other. None of these records show that the transactions were valid. This is detailed further below and demonstrates that Wells Fargo did not conduct a reasonable, good-faith investigation as required by Regulation E. The XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX shows repeated card-not-present transaction attempts were made between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. With the exception of attempts by XXXX and XXXX ( due to saved payment methods ), all other attempts ( XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX ) were not authorized by us and returned Declined-Invalid Card Status. However, in justifying the denial ( p. XXXX ), Wells Fargo stated, There were no further card present transaction attempts after the card was closed. This shows Wells Fargo relied on an irrelevant card-present criterion while selectively ignoring evidence of compromised card credentials being used fraudulently online. Page XXXX shows Wells Fargo relied on call notes from our initial call on XX/XX/XXXX at XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX In those notes, the agent erroneously flagged all the disputed transactions plus a valid {$150.00} charge as verified. That same agent then filed a claim only on the valid {$150.00} charge. Absent are the call notes from the second agent we spoke with roughly XXXX minutes later, who cancelled the erroneous claim and properly filed the fraud claims for the XXXX and XXXX transactions. This selective use and omission of relevant call notes further demonstrates the investigation was not reasonable or conducted in good faith. Page XXXX shows that Wells Fargo changed the status of the debit card with the reason, Closed due to confirmed fraud. However, these are the only transactions for which we filed a claim. This document therefore shows Wells Fargo internally acknowledging that fraud occurred on the card, while simultaneously denying our fraud claim and stating that no fraud occurred. The XXXX XXXX XXXX ( p. XXXX ) shows the XXXX authorization response record for the disputed XXXX transaction XXXX {$1900.00}. It confirms the transaction was approved by Wells Fargo, processed as card-not-present, and completed without a PIN. Yet in their denial ( XXXX XXXX XXXX Wells Fargo stated that the card was in your possession, you have not lost any devices that included a digital wallet, and your PIN was not kept with the card. None of these factors are required for the transaction shown to occur, and the authorization record directly refutes their relevance. For example, it is not reasonable to deny a card-not-present claim partly because the PIN was not kept with the card, when no PIN was used. XXXX XXXX XXXX are also missing for the XXXX transactions. It is difficult to understand how Wells Fargo could deem these transactions valid without ever reviewing their authorization details. This further shows the investigation was not reasonable or conducted in good faith. Wells Fargo used a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, filtered on XXXX XXXX between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. According to the bank ( XXXX XXXX ), this shows the same token/digital card number was used to process both disputed and authorized transactions. However, the same token only proves that the same card credentials were used. It does not prove the transactions were authorized by the account holder, as compromised card information can generate the same token for fraudulent use. Further, only the XXXX XXXX transactions appear on the list, while the XXXX transactions are conspicuously absent. This demonstrates that the document was not used in a reasonable, good-faith manner. The XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) shows that the card was confirmed in possession and that neither the card nor the PIN was shared with anyone else. However, physical possession of the card and PIN are irrelevant for online ( card-not-present ) transactions involving stolen credentials. Despite this, Wells Fargo denied the claim ( p. XXXX ) partly on the basis that the card was in your possession at the time the claim was filed and during the time of the disputed activity. Relying on this irrelevant factor to deny a card-not-present transaction further demonstrates the investigation was not reasonable or conducted in good faith. RELEVANT INFORMATION OMITTED OR IGNORED Relevant information absent from XXXX XXXX documentation for claim XXXX is included in the attachment titled Other_Docs. This includes our correspondence with XXXX and XXXX, both of which confirmed the transactions as fraudulent and referred them to their fraud departments ( XXXX ). Although we reported all the fraudulent transactions which occurred within minutes of each other at the same time, Wells Fargo split them into XXXX separate claims ( XXXX and XXXX ). Yet the documentation they provided makes no mention of the {$4300.00} disputed under claim XXXX, nor the fraud alert text message my wife received on XX/XX/XXXX to which she immediately replied XXXX ( XXXX ). These omissions are further indications that Wells Fargo did not investigate the claim in good faith. Through information obtained from XXXX, we accessed the XXXX receipts ( XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX shows that the {$1900.00} charge was refunded to a XXXXXXXX XXXX Account we do not own or control a clear indication of fraud. XXXX confirmed on XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX that the account had been deactivated and the matter referred to their XXXX Department. The receipts also list names of people we do not know, XXXX of which ( XXXX ) was mentioned to me over the phone by Wells Fargo agent XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. This exculpatory information was known to Wells Fargo yet does not appear in any of the documentation they claimed to have relied upon. DOCUMENTATION DEFICIENCIES In denying our claim ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Wells Fargo stated the transactions were conducted with a device associated with the debit card account. Yet, none of the documents provided show device-specific identifiers such as IP address, geolocation, browser, or device ID that would be required to substantiate this claim. This shows that Wells Fargo arrived at a conclusion favorable to denial without actual evidence. Wells Fargo also denied the claim citing that you have not lost any devices that included a digital wallet and your PIN was not kept with the card. None of the provided documentation contains evidence supporting either assertion. This further demonstrates that the bank reached conclusions without supporting documentation, showing the investigation was not reasonable or conducted in good faith. In the documentation provided for claim XXXX ( XXXX, ), there is no reference to the transactions associated with the denied claim. XXXX XXXX rationale for closing this claim XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXas simply that the merchant had refunded the {$4300.00}. The only document provided was a bank statement dated XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX only the first page is included to protect sensitive information ). However, it strains credulity for Wells Fargo to have made a decision on XX/XX/XXXX using a document that did not exist until XXXX days later. This chronologically impossible reliance further demonstrates a pattern of arriving at conclusions based on non-existent information. PATTERNS OF INADEQUATE INVESTIGATION As detailed above, Wells Fargo selectively used and ignored relevant information, relied on documents that did not exist at the time of their decision, and reached conclusions not supported by the records they claimed to have reviewed. Additionally, the XXXX Police Department, XXXX, and XXXX have all acknowledged the transactions as fraudulent. All of this demonstrates that Wells Fargo did not conduct a reasonable, good-faith investigation as required by Regulation XXXX, resulting in the wrongful denial of our fraud claim.

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