Greg's Corner

New Zelle Protections Haven’t Changed Anything

By Greg Collier

For years, consumers have been targeted by a common and deceptive scheme: scammers posing as bank representatives convincing victims to use Zelle to ‘protect’ or recover their money. Despite growing awareness of this tactic, the outcome for victims has often been devastating, leaving them with little recourse and significant financial loss.

Zelle and the banks behind it have long faced criticism for not doing enough to protect consumers. In response to mounting pressure, Zelle announced a new policy in late 2023 that banks would be required to reimburse customers for certain types of scams. The wording of this policy included an important caveat. Banks would refund consumers for “qualifying imposter scams”.

The intent of the new policy was to create stronger protections for victims of fraud. However, recent cases suggest these so-called new guidelines are not much different from the old ones. Banks continue to deny reimbursements based on the familiar rationale that customers ‘authorized’ the transactions. This remains the linchpin argument banks use to place responsibility on consumers, even when the authorization occurred under false pretenses orchestrated by scammers.

A recent incident illustrates how easily someone can fall victim to this type of fraud. A couple was contacted by someone claiming to be from Wells Fargo’s fraud department. The phone number even appeared to belong to the bank, thanks to modern spoofing technology. The caller asked about supposed fraudulent activity, reassured the couple that their funds would be safe, and then walked them through a series of Zelle transactions. Only later did they realize it was all a scam, and they had lost thousands of dollars.

Despite reporting the incident to their bank, their request for reimbursement was denied. The bank cited the fact that the transactions were ‘authorized’. This reasoning aligns with the longstanding defense that if customers themselves approve the transfer, even under pressure or misinformation, the responsibility remains with them.

Zelle’s official stance highlights a crucial ambiguity in their policy. The company has stated that not all scams involving imposters qualify for reimbursement, but they refuse to share the criteria for ‘qualifying’ cases. According to Zelle, disclosing this information would give criminals a playbook for avoiding detection. This lack of transparency leaves consumers frustrated and uncertain about whether they can expect any protection at all.

The central issue remains that scammers have become increasingly adept at manipulating technology to exploit consumer trust. Policies promising reimbursement offer a glimmer of hope, but the reality for many victims has not improved. While Zelle and participating banks claim they are addressing the problem, their actions suggest otherwise. Until clearer and stronger protections are implemented, consumers must remain vigilant and cautious with unsolicited calls and Zelle transactions.

For now, the lesson remains the same: don’t trust caller ID, don’t act under pressure, and always verify directly with your bank.