Consumer complaint received 2025-09-24 00:00:00
Product: Prepaid card — General-purpose prepaid card
Issue: Problem with a purchase or transfer — Charged for a purchase or transfer you did not make with the card
Company: ROBINHOOD MARKETS INC.
State: MA

Complaint narrative:
I am filing this complaint regarding unauthorized transactions made using my Robinhood debit card on XX/XX/year>. These charges were made before I received my replacement card and after I had already locked the original card due to suspicious activity. Despite this, Robinhood denied my dispute, stating that the transactions were authorized because they were made in person using a PIN. However, this explanation ignores several important technical and legal protections that apply to my case. 

First, when a Robinhood card is locked and replaced, the XXXX XXXX token and digital card number are reset automatically. This means that any transactions that occurred after the lock could not have been made with my authorization, since I no longer had access to the original digital card credentials, and the new card details were not available to me until the replacement arrived. Robinhood failed to consider this technical fact, which is critical to understanding why the charges could not have come from me. 

Additionally, their denial relied solely on the use of a PIN, which does not prove that I authorized the charges. Fraud involving stolen cards and PINs is a well-documented issue, and under Regulation E, consumers are protected against unauthorized transactions even if a PIN is used, as long as the fraud is reported promptly. I reported the activity as soon as I noticed it and followed up with all necessary documentation. 

At the time I initially submitted my dispute, I was still waiting on the police report. Robinhood responded on XX/XX/XXXX stating I could resubmit my case with supporting documentation, which I now have. On XX/XX/XXXX, I received the final police report, and I am now reopening this case through the CFPB as instructed. I have attached the police report, confirmation that the card was locked, and the shipping notice for the new card which shows that the digital credentials were reset. 

I have also included a screenshot of my official work schedule and shift log from XXXX XXXX, clearly showing that I was actively working during the exact time the disputed transactions occurred. This confirms I was not present at the locations where the transactions were made, supporting my claim that they were unauthorized. 

Robinhood cited that the account had been recently funded, but this is not relevant under Regulation E. The act of funding an account does not prove intent to authorize fraud, nor does it establish any connection to specific charges. It is a routine financial activity and should not be treated as evidence against me. 

I have done everything correctly in this situation I locked the card, filed a police report, requested a new card, and submitted all relevant documentation. Regulation E is clear : the burden of proof lies with the institution to show that I authorized the transactions. Simply noting PIN usage is not sufficient to deny a claim, especially when the physical and dXXXX cards were already XXXX and replaced.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation