Consumer complaint received 2025-12-07 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Managing an account — Problem using a debit or ATM card
Company: MoneyLion Inc.
State: CO

Complaint narrative:
I am filing this complaint because MoneyLion has denied reimbursement for a clearly fraudulent transaction, despite concrete evidence proving I did not authorize it and was not present at the location where the transaction occurred. 

On XX/XX/year>, a {$300.00} unauthorized transaction took place at : XXXX XXXX # XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, CO I immediately reported this transaction as fraudulent. Over the next several weeks, MoneyLion denied my dispute XXXX times, each time claiming no error was found and stating there were no critical fraudulent signals. Their conclusions directly contradict actual evidence. 

Here are the facts : XXXX. I was not at the XXXX XXXX at the time of the transaction. 
The detective assigned to my police report obtained surveillance video from the store. The footage clearly shows XXXX unknown males completing the transaction. I am not XXXX of those individuals. 
XXXX. The individuals on the video are complete strangers to me. 
I have never met or seen the XXXX men captured using my card information. 
XXXX. I was nowhere near the location. 
I was over XXXX miles away at the timethe detective and merchant timestamps corroborate this. 
XXXX. MoneyLion ignored concrete, verifiable external evidence. 
Despite being informed that the detective had video proof, MoneyLion relied solely on internal automated fraud signals, rather than reviewing the real-world evidence proving the transaction was unauthorized. 
XXXX. Their stated reasoning is legally incorrect. 
MoneyLions denial letter referenced another similar transaction I did not dispute, implying that this justifies rejecting the fraud claim. This is not a valid basis under Regulation E, and does not override clear proof that this specific transaction was unauthorized.

MoneyLions repeated denials violate Regulation E ( 12 CFR 1005 ) because : Regulation E requires the financial institutionnot the consumerto prove a transaction was authorized. 
They must conduct a reasonable investigation, which means considering all evidence, including merchant video footage. 
They failed to follow the law by dismissing the evidence and closing the case without proper review. 
They improperly shifted the burden of proof onto me as the victim. 

Their refusal to comply with federal requirements has caused significant financial hardship and distress. I am requesting that the CFPB : Require MoneyLion to reopen the investigation Ensure they comply with Regulation E obligations Require reimbursement of the {$300.00} unauthorized transaction Review their internal dispute-handling practices for systemic issues I can provide : Surveillance video of the unauthorized users My police report Emails and written denials from MoneyLion Timeline and location evidence Any supporting documentation required I am asking for the CFPBs assistance in resolving this matter, as MoneyLion has failed to uphold the protections required by law.

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