These people in the fraud department don't even deserve to get found in a river.
Seems pretty much a no brainer to me.
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.
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.
(Maybe it has to do with being used to dealing with clients that literally have no money.)
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-foreclo...
This is a situation where the Invisible Hand of libertarianism was supposed to manifest and gently nudge people to banks with more favorable terms in such numbers that no bank is able to do this and stay profitable.
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.
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.
