Consumer complaint received 2023-02-28
Company: MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC
State: MI
Product: Checking or savings account
Sub-product: Checking account
Issue: Managing an account
Sub-issue: Problem accessing account

Complaint:
Refiling CFPB Complaint XXXX, correcting the language that misidentified the incident with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX The experience of XXXX XXXX XXXX was in XX/XX/XXXX and a XXXX banking branch -- not XXXX. 

On or around XXXX XX/XX/XXXX I opened a Checking account, Savings Account and Brokerage account with E*Trade/Morgan Stanley. After opening the accounts my ability to access features of the account, to include activating my debit card were restricted. The system alleged that it was for the safety of my financial assets and that E*Trade/Morgan Stanley needed to speak with me before enabling all account features. On or around XXXX XX/XX/XXXX I called the phone number per the instructions when logging into the web portal. I was unable to reach an individual and was on-hold for approximately twenty-five ( 25 ) minutes before disconnecting. I called again on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX around 0200 hours ( XXXX UTC ) and reached a representative named XXXX XXXX. I explained to XXXX XXXX that I was instructed by the system to contact account activation. XXXX XXXX explained I needed to provide a copy of my state issued ID and social security card in order to enable full features on my account. He suggested that I take pictures on my phone and upload them through the secure web portal while he was on the phone with me. I declined and explained that I was on my handset and that my wireless headphones were in my vehicle. I told him I would go ahead and image the items using my scanner and call back once I'd uploaded the documents to the secure web portal. I imaged my Driver 's license at a resolution of XXXX dpi, and uploaded it along with an image I already had of my social security card. I called back and reached XXXX XXXX again approximately forty-one minutes after my first call with him. As before I was asked to verify my name, DOB, last four, and e-mail address. Thereafter XXXX XXXX retrieved the files I uploaded. Upon reviewing the documents, XXXX XXXX explained that the documents were not valid because when he zoomed in " the image was pixelated. '' I asked XXXX XXXX if he was referring to my driver 's license or my SS card. XXXX XXXX stated this was the case for both. He explained that he would not accept " scanned '' images of documents and only would accept pictures taken with my phone, again instructing me to complete the process by taking pictures of the items with my phone. I asked XXXX XXXX what the policy was surrounding documentation, which documents were needed to verify my identity, what the image quality needed to be, etc. XXXX XXXX replied that " he was not going to explain the policy surrounding documents that were acceptable, nor the image quality necessary, and insisted I needed to comply with his request to proceed with document verification. I explained to XXXX XXXX that I work for an FFRDC and the explanation XXXX XXXX was providing me, and the restrictions placed, seemingly by XXXX XXXX is his distinction between " scanned '' and " imaged '' were more restrictive than those placed on me than the two FFRDC 's I've worked for in the past five ( 5 ) years. I explained to XXXX XXXX that the supposition that the camera image would be of higher resolution than a " scanned '' image was false because the quality of the image sensor ( camera ) on a phone is heavily dependent upon the phone manufacturer, the software stack used to down-sample the raw image data before saving into an image file, and the age of the phone. I explained to XXXX XXXX that he sounded like he " was full of $ XXXX  '' and explained I would be contacting during first-shift to speak with the individual to which XXXX XXXX reported. While I would like to believe this situation was simply a cascading instances of miscommunication, it is of note to point out that the rejection of the documents based upon alleged " pixelation '' did not take place until after XXXX XXXX had opened up the documents I supplied which clearly showed an image of a XXXX man. That is, the extra scrutiny placed on the documentation I supplied was not rooted in the alleged poor quality of my resubmittals, but rather based on the fact that I am a XXXX man, and the supposition being that I was attempting defraud a financial services institution based upon my physical presentation and identifying information per my government ID. While with a twist, this is not at all dissimilar from the experience of XXXX XXXX XXXX in XXXX of XXXX, where as a XXXX woman in XXXX Michigan she attempted to cash a counter check from her winnings at casino with a local XXXX branch location, only to have three XXXX  tellers claim the check was fraudulent with no justification other than her presentation as a XXXX woman. In my case the documents I resubmitted could be examined clearly at XXXX  their original size without pixelation. Of note is that the camera on my phone has a crack in the lens, making images taken with my phone camera susceptible to artifacts. Moreover, image quality from an optical sensor is heavily dependent upon the lighting and does not guarantee higher image quality than that of documents that are " scanned. '' Finally, that XXXX XXXX would suggest I take a picture with my phone and subsequently take a screenshot of those images would seem to be a clear indicator that this is not about the quality of the provided images, but rather the suggestion that I needed to engage in a process similar to " XXXX '' by capturing the images of the necessary documents WHILE on the phone with XXXX XXXX. I highly doubt I would have been subjected to the same level of scrutiny had I presented in my ID as a " XXXX  '' individual as opposed to a XXXX man. The sad thing is my current employer, one of the FFRDC 's mentioned earlier will be making a deposit of my weekly earnings on or around XXXX XX/XX/XXXX.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation