A customer came in to dispute 4 gas station charges. Upon review of his account (the CSR can go back 90 days); he disputed an additional 25 charges. Per the customer he only uses his pin number at gas stations and none of these utilized a pin number. He also did not think it was the gas station he used, but it turned out it was. As part of the investigation, the customer statements are reviewed to see if the first date of the fraud can be determined when it crosses several months as well as to check for any fees charges.. The same pattern of charges at the same gas station appears on every statement spot checked going back to 2015. What are my options? Am I allowed to deny the dispute because they have been ongoing for years (anywhere from 5 to 15 charges a month from a couple of dollars to $80 per transaction) which certainly makes it appear they were authorized? If not, do I have any other options?

BrianC is the Reg E expert, so maybe he will weigh in. But here is my opinion of the matter.

4 questions:

1) Was this card was ever reported as lost/stolen?
2) Are these card present transactions?
3) Do the disputed transactions and the number of monthly charges appear similar to the established pattern of charges to this merchant?
4) Does this customer have a history of frequent disputes? Not that this can necessarily be used as a denial reason, customers who frequently dispute have generally figured out "the system, so this can become an indicator.

While a counterfeit card isn't completely out of the question, those transactions generally occur somewhere far from your customer.

In your review of statements, and by his admission, this is a gas station he visits often. You have an established pattern of usage, a customer that admits to frequently visiting the merchant, transactions that don't appear out of the ordinary, and are more or less the same as transactions spanning back to 2015. So you have 2 options:

1) If you aren't confident that the number of transactions per month and the amount of the disputed transactions do not match the history, your safest course is to cancel the card, refund the amounts, and refund any fees which may have occurred. Remember you also have the option of not issuing a new card.

2) If these match with transaction history, you might try to get some signed receipts of the non-disputed transactions and compare those signatures against the signatures of the disputed transactions. Failing that, if you're confident the transactions remain true to the established pattern, you may have enough reason to deny the claim. Be sure to document, document, document, and document some more.

I agree with burkemi. If these are all MCC5542, I would ask if he uses any other cards for gas. If not, and the usage falls into the normal parameters, I would add that to my list of evidence and document it.

I like the above but based on a location alone is not sufficient to assume it was the customer. I would see if the store has any footage and one disputed charge with the customer doing it would be compelling. If there are unauthorized charges going back year, Reg E would disqualify all but the recent ones and this fact would cast doubt in my mind that the customer ever reviews the statements or pays attention to his account. That isn't proof he did them, but it would be a contributing factor to me.

It is very dangerous territory to "deny the dispute [solely] because they have been ongoing for years." USAA just got hammered for this. From the 1/3/19 consent order with the CFPB:

"When consumers had transactions with the merchant at issue that predated the disputed transaction, the Bank made the summary determination that no error had occurred, without reasonably considering other evidence in its own records, including the consumer’s assertion that the EFT was unauthorized or an incorrect amount or the bases for the consumer’s assertion;"