7 ms·

But a payment as part of a fraud is often an nauthorized payment. This is what people don't realize. An authorized payment is one that you agreed to make; if yo

But a payment as part of a fraud is often an nauthorized payment. This is what people don't realize. An authorized payment is one that you agreed to make; if you didn't get what you expected in return, that doesn't make the payment unauthorized. Banks have no legal obligation to refund authorized payments, any more than they have obligations to refund people who took cash out of ATMs that they lost as part of a fraud.

lolinder 3y ago
The third bullet point on the first page says that the kind of fraud involved includes hacked accounts, which is the most classic type of unauthorized payment: > Banks are not repaying customers who contest “unauthorized” Zelle payments – potentially violating federal law and CFPB rules. Zelle claims to have a “zero liability policy” for cases in which a bad actor gains access to a consumer’s Zelle account and uses it to make unauthorized payments, and the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA) and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) “Regulation E” require that the banks repay customers when funds are illegally taken out of their account without authorization. But the data provided by the banks revealed that they reimbursed consumers for only 47% of the dollar amount of cases in which customers reported unauthorized payments on Zelle in 2021 and the first half of 2022.
- NovemberWhiskey 3y ago
  That number doesn't really tell you anything. I mean, 23% of people admit to committing friendly fraud via credit card chargebacks.
freejazz 3y ago
I'm not sure how that's actually a response to what I wrote. You are just disputing some categories of payments. It has nothing to do with the fact that the banks created a money transfer system where they eschew their legal obligations.
- NovemberWhiskey 3y ago
  You'll have to be more specific about what you think their legal obligations are, then. As far as I'm aware, Regulation E requires banks to resolve errors appropriately, including unauthorized transfers. It does not require them to reverse arbitrary transfers, including ones where a fraud was perpetrated on their customer.
  - freejazz 3y ago
    The report is explicit about it, I'm not sure why you are having difficulty with that. The report mentions, for example, when their accounts are hacked. That's just one example. Are you confused or are you just being obtuse? Someone else provided this exact answer to your identical question, upthread, prior to your asking me the same exact thing here again.

lolinder 3y ago

The third bullet point on the first page says that the kind of fraud involved includes hacked accounts, which is the most classic type of unauthorized payment: > Banks are not repaying customers who contest “unauthorized” Zelle payments – potentially violating federal law and CFPB rules. Zelle claims to have a “zero liability policy” for cases in which a bad actor gains access to a consumer’s Zelle account and uses it to make unauthorized payments, and the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA) and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) “Regulation E” require that the banks repay customers when funds are illegally taken out of their account without authorization. But the data provided by the banks revealed that they reimbursed consumers for only 47% of the dollar amount of cases in which customers reported unauthorized payments on Zelle in 2021 and the first half of 2022.

NovemberWhiskey 3y ago
That number doesn't really tell you anything. I mean, 23% of people admit to committing friendly fraud via credit card chargebacks.

freejazz 3y ago

I'm not sure how that's actually a response to what I wrote. You are just disputing some categories of payments. It has nothing to do with the fact that the banks created a money transfer system where they eschew their legal obligations.

NovemberWhiskey 3y ago
You'll have to be more specific about what you think their legal obligations are, then. As far as I'm aware, Regulation E requires banks to resolve errors appropriately, including unauthorized transfers. It does not require them to reverse arbitrary transfers, including ones where a fraud was perpetrated on their customer.
- freejazz 3y ago
  The report is explicit about it, I'm not sure why you are having difficulty with that. The report mentions, for example, when their accounts are hacked. That's just one example. Are you confused or are you just being obtuse? Someone else provided this exact answer to your identical question, upthread, prior to your asking me the same exact thing here again.