4 ms·
I think you are both sort of correct. The pertinent bit of regulation E[1] appears to hinge on how the fraudulent transfer was done. It looks like if you as th
by Karunamon 4y ago
I think you are both sort of correct. The pertinent bit of regulation E[1] appears to hinge on how the fraudulent transfer was done.
It looks like if you as the authorized person transfer money to somebody because you were scammed into doing so, then the regulation does not apply. However, if you were scammed into giving up your, say, debit card number or password, and this was used to to initiate transfers, the regulation does apply. The magic words here are "access device" and "unauthorized".
That being said once you start throwing around laws that the average consumer doesn't know about, on certified letters directed at important people, the bank very well might make you whole rather than fight it even if you have no case.
[1]: https://www.consumerfinance.gov/rules-policy/regulations/1005/2/#m https://www.consumerfinance.gov/rules-policy/regulations/100...
- snotrockets 4y agoThe intent (which is how law and regulation are interpreted), as expressed in the regulator comments on the regulation (e.g. 2(m)-4 at the link above), was to make sure the cost, to consumer, of using electronic services, is the same as having a human do the task. Just imagine calling, or going to the bank to make a similar transfer to a scammy zelle one. I assure you the person you'd be speaking to would have to ask you some very pointed questions about that transfer, and not out of the goodness of their hearts. banks try to replace humans with software to reduce their costs; reg E basically is "you're only allowed to harm your own workforce doing so, not your customers"