BLAMED FOR THE SCAM — Why Banks Still Owe Refunds After Fraud
Scam-based fraud often unfolds quickly
A call, text, or email appears to come directly from a bank. The message sounds urgent and convincing. Minutes later, money is gone.
When consumers report the loss, many banks respond with the same conclusion: the transfer was the customer’s fault and therefore not refundable.
That conclusion is frequently wrong.
Under federal law, whether a consumer was deceived is not the deciding factor. What matters is whether the consumer authorized the actual transfer. R23 Law’s California Consumer Protection Attorneys routinely challenge banks that blur this distinction to avoid reimbursement.
The EFTA Focuses on Authorization, Not Blame
The Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA) does not use the word “negligence.” It does not deny protection simply because a consumer was tricked.
Instead, the law asks a narrower question: Did the consumer knowingly authorize the transfer itself?
In many scam scenarios:
A fraudster impersonates a bank or trusted institution
The consumer believes they are protecting their account
The fraudster executes the transfer, not the consumer
When that happens, the transfer may still be legally unauthorized under the EFTA.
Why Banks Push the “It’s Your Fault” Narrative
Blaming the customer saves money. If a bank convinces a consumer that falling for a scam eliminates legal protection, the bank avoids reimbursing the loss.
This strategy relies on confusion between two very different concepts:
Voluntary actions, such as responding to a message
Authorized transfers, which require informed approval of the actual transaction
Federal law protects consumers when fraudsters control the transaction, even if deception played a role.
“Voluntary” Does Not Mean “Authorized”
Banks often argue that typing a password, clicking a link, or speaking to a fraudster equals consent. Under the EFTA, that argument does not hold.
Authorization requires understanding what transaction is occurring and approving it knowingly. When scammers misrepresent reality, any so-called consent is meaningless.
When Banks Deny Without Proper Review
A lawful investigation requires more than a template response. When banks deny claims without examining transaction data, device information, or fraud indicators, they risk violating federal law.
Improper denials can expose banks to:
Mandatory refunds
Statutory damages
Attorneys’ fees and costs
These consequences exist because Congress recognized that consumers cannot investigate fraud on their own.
Contact R23 Law Today
If a bank denied reimbursement after a scam by claiming the transfer was your fault, experienced consumer protection counsel matters.
SoCal: (310) 598-1588
Email: info@R23Law.com
