BofA closed account without notice after adding authorized users

[Bmom]

Maybe because it's fraudulently padding someone else's credit report? Or like others said, because of the rewards from adding AUs?

@Anonymous wrote:

@Remedios wrote:

Bank of America does this often when bunch of random people are added and rightfully so. Other lenders do it with similar frequency, it is not unique to BoA.

Cap One will close account before you can say AU. 

Next time you decide to "help", don't pick a whole village, one person is enough if there is no obvious relationship between primary cardholder and AUs. 

Just thinking, if the account holder doesn't give the random AUs their card, what is the risk to the bank? I guess there must be cases where the AUs get hold of a replacement card or something (but even then primary holder should be responsible if he/she added them)

[Remedios]

---

@Bmom wrote:

Maybe because it's fraudulently padding someone else's credit report? Or like others said, because of the rewards from adding AUs?

@Anonymouswrote:

@Remedioswrote:

Bank of America does this often when bunch of random people are added and rightfully so. Other lenders do it with similar frequency, it is not unique to BoA.

Cap One will close account before you can say AU. 

Next time you decide to "help", don't pick a whole village, one person is enough if there is no obvious relationship between primary cardholder and AUs. 

Just thinking, if the account holder doesn't give the random AUs their card, what is the risk to the bank? I guess there must be cases where the AUs get hold of a replacement card or something (but even then primary holder should be responsible if he/she added them)

---

How would bank know what you did with cards?

All they see is an account ripe for two particular types of fraud.

I mean, if you cannot convince me that you know 7 random people new to US who share nothing in common with you and  have no one else who would help them, how do you think AI sees it?  

But if I must spell it, they see it either as you selling tradeline (very common), or you're creating synthetic identities (less common but leads to huge loses for the bank). 

In any case, this is a done deal. Whatever your reasoning was, don't do it again or you'll lose that account, too. 

[superchurn]

---

@Bmom wrote:

Maybe because it's fraudulently padding someone else's credit report? Or like others said, because of the rewards from adding AUs?

@Anonymouswrote:

@Remedioswrote:

Bank of America does this often when bunch of random people are added and rightfully so. Other lenders do it with similar frequency, it is not unique to BoA.

Cap One will close account before you can say AU. 

Next time you decide to "help", don't pick a whole village, one person is enough if there is no obvious relationship between primary cardholder and AUs. 

Just thinking, if the account holder doesn't give the random AUs their card, what is the risk to the bank? I guess there must be cases where the AUs get hold of a replacement card or something (but even then primary holder should be responsible if he/she added them)

---

Nope, haven't gotten a single offer to add authorized users.

[K-in-Boston]

---

@pauldc73 wrote:

Maybe I have been living under a rock, but I had no idea that many AUs could be added to an account....  Well up to 6 anyway!

---

Last time I checked the fine print, American Express had a maximum of 99!

[DONZI]

..and for an amex platinum card I'd imagine they'd welcome a handful of $175+ AU and maybe a few free gold AU.

[coldfusion]

---

@DONZI wrote:

..and for an amex platinum card I'd imagine they'd welcome a handful of $175+ AU and maybe a few free gold AU.

---

I'm sure they would, but occasionally a report crops up about their having taken notice and asking questions when a personal account develops a history of all spend being made by AUs with none by the principal cardholder. 

[ThomasJNewton]

---

@Remedios wrote:

Bank of America does this often when bunch of random people are added and rightfully so.

---

I have no horse in this race, but, while I agree that they have every right to close one's account for any reason, I am not clear why you argue they should? I would even understand their moving to enhanced verification (and maybe financial review), but if I am willing to be responsible for everyone on my block's spending, why is that an issue?

I am not clear what special fraud you see that this enables.

[NYC_Fella]

---

@ThomasJNewton wrote:

---

@Remedios wrote:

Bank of America does this often when bunch of random people are added and rightfully so.

---

I have no horse in this race, but, while I agree that they have every right to close one's account for any reason, I am not clear why you argue they should? I would even understand their moving to enhanced verification (and maybe financial review), but if I am willing to be responsible for everyone on my block's spending, why is that an issue?

I am not clear what special fraud you see that this enables.

---

It's all data-driven. Clearly they have models that predict fraudulent behavior with a reaasonable degree of accuracy. They don't care to expend the resources investigate individual cases further; it's more efficient for them just to close accounts they deem risky. Enhanced verification and financial review require manpower.

[Remedios]

---

@ThomasJNewton wrote:

---

@Remedios wrote:

Bank of America does this often when bunch of random people are added and rightfully so.

---

I have no horse in this race, but, while I agree that they have every right to close one's account for any reason, I am not clear why you argue they should? I would even understand their moving to enhanced verification (and maybe financial review), but if I am willing to be responsible for everyone on my block's spending, why is that an issue?

I am not clear what special fraud you see that this enables.

---

1) Selling/buying tradelines 

2) Creating synthetic identities as a part of larger, more insidious fraud scheme which also branches into two separate types of fraud involving synthetic identities. 

[Kforce]

---

@fury1995 wrote:

As a side note.. Issuers are taking a real hard look these days even when an A/U spouse puts more spend through an account than the primary.

---

My wife and kids are 90% of my cards spend.

I hope you are wrong on this.