The official interpretation to Reg E Sec 11(b)(1) states:

7. Effect of late notice. An institution is not required to comply with the requirements of this section for any notice of error from the consumer that is received by the institution later than 60 days from the date on which the periodic statement first reflecting the error is sent. Where the consumer's assertion of error involves an unauthorized EFT, however, the institution must comply with § 1005.6 before it may impose any liability on the consumer.

I'm not really sure how to take this. Can anyone elaborate a bit? My gut reaction is still to investigate on proceed as usual. I got some trouble with some investigation timelines that I wonder if i'll get a break on using this interpretation.

Thanks in advance.

This is saying that everything in 1005.11 (requirements for provisional credit, resolve claim in 45/90 days) does not apply. However, if the claim involves an unauthorized EFT, you still must reimburse the customer for any unauthorized transactions according to the liability schedule in 1005.6(b).

This means that if I claimed I had unauthorized transactons going back to January 2, 2022, the bank would be liable for reimbursing the customer for all transactions between January 2, 2022 and 60 days after you transmitted the January statement (based on 1005.6(b)(3)).

However, if I claimed an incorrect EFT happened on January 2, 2022 (e.g. I authorized $100.00 but was charged $1,000.00) you would not have to investigate since 1005.11 does not apply due to late notice and 1005.6(b) would not apply since I am not asserting that the claim is unauthorized and 1005.6(b). In other words, you would not have to investigate this claim because the customer took too long to notify of the error.

I think Brian meant to refer to 1005.6(b) and 1005.6(b)(3) in his first two paragraphs (where underlined).

Yes, Brian did. I edited my original post. Thanks, John.