4 ms·

I wonder if the bank can be sued for this. That's how random bank managers get found in a river, due to policies like these impacting the innocent.

mcny 3y ago
I got a random call from Wells Fargo fraud department and I refused to give them my information. Escalated and the supervisor also pretended to not understand my concern. In fact, they placed a stupid hold. I went to a bank and the bank manager has to call them back and basically beg these people to remove my holds. These people in the fraud department don't even deserve to get found in a river.
- CaptainZapp 3y ago
  Why didn't you politely suggest to call Wells Fargo' central phone number and have the switch board transfer you to him? Seems pretty much a no brainer to me.
  - bombcar 3y ago
    It should be standard for all banks that if they have a fraud issue, they call you and tell you to call the number on the back of your card, and press 6 or something. The fraud departments we have are so indistinguishable from actual phishing it’s amazing. They even send you a two factor code and have you read it to them! The text says they’ll never ask for it via phone! Embarrassing.
    - mcny 3y ago
      Worse, as a customer, it is almost impossible to reach a specific person at a bank over the phone. The branch manager who called had to authenticate himself over the phone (at least he was the one who placed the call) and waited on hold for over twenty minutes and even then he didn't talk to a specific person iirc. The strange thing is the supervisor was clearly on a power trip. They made me waste hours of my life chasing this nonsense.
pjc50 3y ago
I'm surprised we haven't heard more lawsuits about this in notoriously litigious America. I find it hard to believe that "we can ruin you at any time" is a sustainably fair contract term.
- teddyh 3y ago
  In order to sue anyone, you need money. To have money, you need a bank account. Therefore, if the bank takes your account, you can’t sue the bank.
  - dwighttk 3y ago
    Yeah, but they’ve never done it to someone who knows someone with money?
    - bombcar 3y ago
      Then they fix it and make it good. Which can be why it can be worthwhile to file suit in small claims court or even pro se. Because then you’re in their legal department which often at least responds. Or you get to foreclose on the local branch. https://abcnews.go.com/Business/bank-america-florida-foreclosed-angry-homeowner-bofa/story?id=13775638 https://abcnews.go.com/Business/bank-america-florida-foreclo...
  - BeFlatXIII 3y ago
    Find a lawyer who's willing to split the judgement 50/50. They only get paid once they win.
    - teddyh 3y ago
      That only covers the incentive for the lawyer for one isolated case. But since such a lawyer will probably take many such cases (and often against the same banks), we must examine the incentives of such a lawyer more closely. The incentive of such a lawyer is to keep taking such cases, which means it is actually in the lawyer’s interest to deliberately lose some amount of such cases, in order to keep it profitable for the bank to keep debanking customers, thereby ensuring that the lawyer has enough business.
j-a-a-p 3y ago
OTOH I do hope a bank is allowed to go full stop on the brakes if needed. I had my CC blocked 4 times because of fraud detection. All done by the CC company and it never cost me anything but inconvenience. If the bank would be liable, we all suffer. How much will banks charge if we would be both secured from fraud risks and indemnified from account closure damages? I would think 1% of your cashflow would not be unreasonable.
- sgjohnson 3y ago
  Banks are almost never liable for fraudulent CC charges. The merchant picks up the tab just about every time.
  - j-a-a-p 3y ago
    Yes been there, still am actually. Also as a merchant I like a pro-active attitude of the bank to deal with fraud. But, more on-topic, bank accounts are definitely more stable than CCs. But they are not immune for seizures and fraud detection.
pc86 3y ago
Ah yes the classic "I'm completely innocent so I murdered this bank manager."

mcny 3y ago

I got a random call from Wells Fargo fraud department and I refused to give them my information. Escalated and the supervisor also pretended to not understand my concern. In fact, they placed a stupid hold. I went to a bank and the bank manager has to call them back and basically beg these people to remove my holds. These people in the fraud department don't even deserve to get found in a river.

CaptainZapp 3y ago
Why didn't you politely suggest to call Wells Fargo' central phone number and have the switch board transfer you to him? Seems pretty much a no brainer to me.
- bombcar 3y ago
  It should be standard for all banks that if they have a fraud issue, they call you and tell you to call the number on the back of your card, and press 6 or something. The fraud departments we have are so indistinguishable from actual phishing it’s amazing. They even send you a two factor code and have you read it to them! The text says they’ll never ask for it via phone! Embarrassing.
  - mcny 3y ago
    Worse, as a customer, it is almost impossible to reach a specific person at a bank over the phone. The branch manager who called had to authenticate himself over the phone (at least he was the one who placed the call) and waited on hold for over twenty minutes and even then he didn't talk to a specific person iirc. The strange thing is the supervisor was clearly on a power trip. They made me waste hours of my life chasing this nonsense.

pjc50 3y ago

I'm surprised we haven't heard more lawsuits about this in notoriously litigious America. I find it hard to believe that "we can ruin you at any time" is a sustainably fair contract term.

teddyh 3y ago
In order to sue anyone, you need money. To have money, you need a bank account. Therefore, if the bank takes your account, you can’t sue the bank.
- dwighttk 3y ago
  Yeah, but they’ve never done it to someone who knows someone with money?
  - bombcar 3y ago
    Then they fix it and make it good. Which can be why it can be worthwhile to file suit in small claims court or even pro se. Because then you’re in their legal department which often at least responds. Or you get to foreclose on the local branch. https://abcnews.go.com/Business/bank-america-florida-foreclosed-angry-homeowner-bofa/story?id=13775638 https://abcnews.go.com/Business/bank-america-florida-foreclo...
- BeFlatXIII 3y ago
  Find a lawyer who's willing to split the judgement 50/50. They only get paid once they win.
  - teddyh 3y ago
    That only covers the incentive for the lawyer for one isolated case. But since such a lawyer will probably take many such cases (and often against the same banks), we must examine the incentives of such a lawyer more closely. The incentive of such a lawyer is to keep taking such cases, which means it is actually in the lawyer’s interest to deliberately lose some amount of such cases, in order to keep it profitable for the bank to keep debanking customers, thereby ensuring that the lawyer has enough business.

j-a-a-p 3y ago

OTOH I do hope a bank is allowed to go full stop on the brakes if needed. I had my CC blocked 4 times because of fraud detection. All done by the CC company and it never cost me anything but inconvenience. If the bank would be liable, we all suffer. How much will banks charge if we would be both secured from fraud risks and indemnified from account closure damages? I would think 1% of your cashflow would not be unreasonable.

sgjohnson 3y ago
Banks are almost never liable for fraudulent CC charges. The merchant picks up the tab just about every time.
- j-a-a-p 3y ago
  Yes been there, still am actually. Also as a merchant I like a pro-active attitude of the bank to deal with fraud. But, more on-topic, bank accounts are definitely more stable than CCs. But they are not immune for seizures and fraud detection.

pc86 3y ago

Ah yes the classic "I'm completely innocent so I murdered this bank manager."