Consumer complaint received 2020-09-22
Product: Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service — Domestic (US) money transfer
Issue: Other transaction problem — 
Company: Paypal Holdings, Inc (FL)

Consider this an addendum, but not duplication of complaint XXXX. The company 's response misrepresents the order of events and occludes the complaint in legal jargon and indirectly related policy. This complaint centers on the misrepresentation to the cfpb of the order events in their response to my original complaint. 

In the response my transfer to my son is labeled as " Payment 1 '' when in fact it happened after the mistaken transfer, this misrepresents the order of events to shift blame to me, it should in fact be labeled " Payment 2 ''. My son needed financial aid due to income loss during the pandemic. We spoke on the phone and he gave me an email address that I was not very familiar with, leaving out one letter. 
During the personal transfer the only recipient verification I received was that the email format is valid. There was no validation of who that email represented. 
During the process of sending personal funds transfer, my son sent a request for funds to me, which I did not see until after the mistaken transaction completed. The " send personal money '' workflow I was in was not interrupted, I was not notified of the request until that mistaken transaction completed. I was not allowed to verify the identity of the actual first transaction, that resulted in a mistaken loss of {$1000.00}. This is a flaw in the workflow and as it is an complete omission from the process, could not trigger an any logical or code based error. ( as referenced in their response ) After the mistaken transaction was completed, and only after, did I send my son {$500.00} based on that request. He clearly was still in financial jeopardy, and I I still needed to provide help. This is in fact transaction # 2 and in their CFPB response they switch the order, and labeled it " Payment 1 '' to bolster their argument. This is incorrect and misrepresentation, they talk about unrelated policy on Consumer to Business transactions, I guess as filler, this is a person to person transaction. They failed to allow me to verify the recipient of the actual " Payment 1 '' to " XXXX XXXX '' ( who is not known to me ), and they do not notify you of incoming payment requests, if you are in a transfer workflow. They then point to their EULA as justification for not meeting basic transactional responsibility. I can imagine no other reputable transaction where I can not verify the recipient of funds, personal or business. This is flaw in workflow design and I should be refunded. This is a failure on their part to provide a necessary, basic mechanism for verification that companies like XXXX and XXXX XXXX provide. I feel their response is dishonest and would like the CFPB to demand an honest response. It's clear from online reviews, discussions with PayPal phone help and their fear of setting precedent of refund -- that this happens regularly. Many people are effected, and I can only imagine the amounts of money involved globally. I also wonder if misrepresenting the order of events to a governmental agency is criminal or not?