I'm reviewing Reg E, and saw a claim whereby the customer was charged twice in the same day, for the same amount (I believe it was for gasoline at a gas station). When the M/C chargeback was rejected based on the reason "Two seperate valid PIN authorized transactions", the customer was denied a refund by the bank.

To me, this isn't enough reason to deny the customer's claim. So what if it was two seperate transactions using the PIN. What if someone "borrowed" the card and knew the PIN. Also, to me it sounds like the merchant screwed up and ran the same transaction twice. Now if we had video from the gas station that showed the customer making both transactions, I'd agree with the denied claim.

What say you?

Well... "borrowed" or stole or was authorized to use the card is your predicament. A M/C chargeback does not excuse a REG E claim. It may mean the bank eats all the money, but it is not meant to be the governing decision to a REG E issue.

I'd say if the customer reported the transactions (or one of them really) as unauthorized, than the unauthorized transaction has to be provisionally credited back and then the customer made whole at the end of YOUR investigation (REGARDLESS of what M/C) says... All M/C says is they aren't paying the money back for you with chargeback, it doesn't mean that the claim of an unauthorized transaction is not true.

As you pointed out, no video, not much you can do, Reg E is very consumer friendly. Give them their money back.

Cheers!

No question that Reg E is as consumer friendly as they come, but before I jump to the conclusion saying the claim should have been approved there are a couple of questions I would want answered.

1. Were the time stamps on the transactions identical? If not, probably not a duplicate transaction.
2. Were the transactions posted on a Monday? I receive a lot of false duplicate charge disputes because the customer bought a pack of cigarrettes on Saturday, and another on Sunday, and although both charges posted to the account the same day and for the same amount, they were clearly two seperate transactions. (I document these dates/times when I deny a claim should it be questioned later and the transaction history is no longer available.)

Also remember that Reg E does allow you to use account history as part of the investigation. If it appears that the customer has a history of making purchases for around this amount and you can determine that the transactions weren't one right after another indicating a true duplicate, you may be within your rights to deny a claim.
Unlike a court of law, a Reg E investigation does not require "proof beyound a reasonable doubt." It simply requires that an investigation be conducted and based on the available evidence, a decision made.

All of that being said, I agree with AFaquir, the bank's ability to receover funds via chargeback has no bearing on whether or not to approve or deny a Reg E claim.