"Banks are not repaying customers who contest “unauthorized” Zelle payments – potentially violating federal law and CFPB rules."

I suppose you and Senator Warren have different definitions for unauthorized.

So, actually, 47% of them by dollar amount, according to the report you quoted. Selectively quoted. Why do you behave this way?

Here's a question for you to think about: Why do they reverse some claims but not others?

> Why do they reverse some claims but not others?

I guess that is the question. I'll be interested in the bank's reply.

Why is the word "unauthorized" in scare quotes?

And a lot of the complaint is about "cases where customers reported being fraudulently induced into making payments", which would agree with the ancestor comment.

Honestly I don't know. I copied and pasted the text and punctuation from the original document and it put them there. I also didn't do the research. The office of Senator Warren did. You can quibble with them. :)

> You can quibble with them. :)

The scare quotes imply that they are the ones saying the case isn't very strong, so I'm not quibbling with them, I'm trying to interpret them.