Answer:
by Randy Carey:
Not really, how can you be sure what they even looked at?
Answer:
by Brian Crow:
The guidance to Regulation notes that you cannot rely on the delivery of a periodic statement when determining when a consumer learns of a loss or theft of an access device when assigning liability under 1005.6(b). This comment certainly extends to reviewing account information via online banking.
Comment to 1005.6(b)(1)
Knowledge of loss or theft of access device. The fact that a consumer has received a periodic statement that reflects unauthorized transfers may be a factor in determining whether the consumer had knowledge of the loss or theft but cannot be deemed to represent conclusive evidence that the consumer had such knowledge.
Answer:
By John Burnett
For most accounts, you cannot rely on a consumer's access to online account transaction activity to change the provisions relating to the consumer's awareness of an unauthorized EFT. There are only two "awareness" triggers -- the consumer's becoming aware of the loss or theft of his/her access device, and the sending of a statement of the account to the consumer (or making it available) on which the unauthorized EFT appears.
But two types of accounts -- accounts established by a government agency for a consumer's receipt of government benefit payments, covered in section 1005.15 of Regulation E, and prepaid accounts covered under section 1005.18 -- a consumer's online access to the account (assuming the bank can document it) can be used to trigger the section 1005.6(b)(3) 60-day count for consumer notice of unauthorized EFTs to the financial institution and the 60-day consumer notice requirement in section 1005.11.
print
share