Product: Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service

[ See Attachment Please ] On XX/XX/XXXX, I attempted to transfer {$570.00} via SoFis Zelle payment service to my intended recipient, XXXX XXXX. However, I had been provided with an incorrect phone number ( XXXX instead of XXXX ), which led to the funds being sent to an unintended recipient. 

When initiating the transaction, I correctly entered both the full name " XXXX XXXX '' and the provided phone number, expecting SoFis system to verify this information before processing the payment. However, instead of confirming whether the full registered name matched the phone number, SoFis interface only displayed the first name " XXXX '' the first name of the actual account holder associated with the incorrect number. 

This incomplete and misleading display gave me the false impression that SoFi had validated my input and matched it to the intended recipient. Believing that " XXXX '' was an internal placeholder or identifier, I proceeded with the transaction, only to later discover that the funds had been sent to an unintended recipient due to the incorrect phone number. 

This issue was not due to user error but rather a direct consequence of SoFis fundamentally flawed transaction verification process, which lacks standard safeguards to prevent misdirected payments. Unlike other financial institutions, SoFi does not confirm the full registered name of the recipient, does not provide mismatch alerts, and fails to give users a clear indication of whether their inputted recipient details have been properly validated. These deficiencies significantly increase the risk of misdirected transactions and irreversible financial loss. 

SoFis Zelle implementation, launched in XX/XX/XXXX, fails to incorporate industry-standard protections that are essential for secure peer-to-peer transactions. The key design flaws include : *Lack of Recipient Name Verification* Unlike other financial institutions such as XXXX XXXX XXXX SoFi does not confirm the recipients full registered name before finalizing transactions. This omission significantly increases the risk of payments being sent to unintended recipients due to minor input errors, making users solely responsible for potential errors without any system-generated warnings. 

*Limited Recipient Name Display* Unlike other major financial institutions that display the recipients full registered name before finalizing a transaction, SoFis Zelle interface only shows the first name of the recipient. This incomplete information prevents users from properly verifying the recipient 's identity, significantly increasing the risk of misdirected payments. 
*No Built-in Error Correction Mechanism* Once a transaction is sent, SoFi provides no structured process for consumers to correct or reverse erroneous transfers. Unlike competitors such as XXXX XXXX, which allows customers to file disputes under certain conditions, SoFi does not facilitate retrieval efforts even in clear cases of accidental transfers.

*Inadequate Customer Support and Dispute Resolution* After realizing the error, I immediately contacted SoFis customer service, but the response was inconsistent and ineffective.

SoFi failed to confirm whether they reached out to the unintended recipients financial institution. 
The internal investigation lasted only XXXX days, raising concerns about its thoroughness. 
Customer service representatives provided conflicting information, demonstrating a lack of standardized procedures for handling such cases. 
SoFis system design places undue financial risk on consumers by failing to implement these fundamental security features. The absence of verification mechanisms means that users must rely entirely on the accuracy of manually entered information, without the protections that are standard in similar banking services. This not only increases the likelihood of transaction errors but also exposes users to significant financial losses without meaningful recourse. 

Given these systemic deficiencies, I urge the CFPB to investigate SoFis Zelle security framework and require them to adopt industry-standard safeguards, including recipient name verification, transaction confirmation warnings, and a robust dispute resolution process to protect consumers from preventable financial harm.