Consumer complaint received 2024-10-04
Product: Checking or savings account — Savings account
Issue: Managing an account — Cashing a check
Company: SOFI TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (SC)

I am writing to file a formal complaint against SoFi Bank ( SoFi ) concerning misleading advertising practices, inconsistent treatment of money order deposits, and inadequate disclosure of material information. SoFi advertises that it accepts money orders, but in practice, their sole deposit methodmobile depositoften prohibits the acceptance of most money orders. This discrepancy has caused me significant inconvenience and confusion, and I believe it reflects unfair and deceptive practices that violate consumer protection laws. 

On XX/XX/year>, I successfully deposited a money order from XXXX XXXX marked Mobile Deposit Prohibited using SoFis mobile deposit feature. This acceptance reinforced my understanding, based on SoFis advertising, that all money orders were acceptable for deposit through their platform. However, on XX/XX/year>, I attempted to deposit a functionally identical money order from XXXX XXXX, also marked Mobile Deposit Prohibited. SoFi refused to accept this deposit, citing the restriction as the reason ( their reason through email differs as provided ), despite having accepted the same type of money order previously. At no point did SoFi communicate any changes to their deposit policies or provide notice that money orders with such markings would no longer be accepted. 

This inconsistent policy enforcement suggests negligence in internal controls and a disregard for transparent communication with customers. It undermines consumer trust and can be indicative of broader compliance issues within the institution. The confusion and inconvenience caused by accepting one money order and rejecting another identical one have been significant. 

SoFis official communications and marketing materials explicitly state that they accept money orders for deposit. There is no mention of limitations or exceptions related to money orders marked Mobile Deposit Prohibited. ( XXXX XXXX XXXXSoFi-XXXX ) This omission is material, as it affects a consumers ability to use the advertised services effectively. By failing to disclose that their only deposit method is incompatible with most money orders, SoFi is omitting critical information that would influence a consumers decision to use their services. Such omissions are considered deceptive under UDAAP guidelines, as they prevent consumers from making informed decisions. Consumers are led to believe they can deposit all money orders through SoFis platform, but the reality is that many money orders can not be deposited due to SoFis exclusive reliance on mobile deposit. 

SoFi only offers mobile deposit for checks and money orders, with no physical branches or mail-in options. Despite advertising acceptance of money orders, SoFis deposit methods effectively prevent a significant portion of money orders from being deposited. This in my opinion constitutes a denial of the advertised service and can be seen as a form of bait-and-switch tactic further supported by their inconsistent actions. Furthermore, SoFi does not provide or suggest any alternative methods for depositing these money orders, leaving consumers without viable options after they have committed to using SoFis services. 

The inability to deposit the money order has caused a delay in accessing funds, which were needed for time-sensitive financial obligations. Seeking alternative methods to deposit or cash the money order will incur additional fees, representing an unanticipated cost directly resulting from SoFis practices. The confusion and frustration caused by the inconsistent acceptance and lack of clear communication have led to unnecessary stress, eroding the trust I placed in SoFi as a financial institution. Time spent attempting to resolve this issue with SoFis customer service, researching alternatives, and drafting this complaint represents a loss of personal time and productivity. 

I believe SoFis actions violate UDAAP regulations in several ways. Under unfair practices, SoFis failure to disclose significant limitations on money order deposits places consumers at an unavoidable disadvantage, as they can not reasonably avoid the harm caused by these undisclosed restrictions. Regarding deceptive practices, the misleading advertising suggests that all money orders are accepted, which is not the case. The omission of critical information about deposit limitations is likely to mislead a reasonable consumer. The inconsistent acceptance of identical money orders indicates a lack of proper internal controls and staff training, reflecting negligence in policy enforcement. Such negligence can lead to broader compliance issues and reflects poorly on SoFis commitment to regulatory obligations. 

By advertising services and then failing to provide them without adequate notice or justification, SoFi may be in breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing inherent in consumer contracts. Financial institutions have a responsibility to act transparently and prioritize the consumers needs. SoFis practices place their convenience over consumer rights and access to funds. 

I respectfully request that the CFPB conducts a thorough investigation into SoFis advertising practices, policy disclosures, and compliance with consumer protection laws. SoFi should be required to clearly and prominently disclose any limitations on money order deposits in all advertising materials, customer communications, and at the point of transaction. I encourage SoFi to provide alternative means for depositing money orders that can not be processed via mobile deposit, such as mail-in deposits or partnerships with physical locations, to fulfill their advertised services. Additionally, I seek compensation for any financial losses incurred due to SoFis practices, including fees from alternative deposit methods and any consequential damages. It would also be beneficial for SoFi to review and enhance their internal policies, staff training, and compliance programs to prevent future occurrences of similar issues. 

Enclosed are copies of both money orders to demonstrate their identical nature and markings. Additionally, I am providing records of communications with SoFi customer service representatives, including dates, times, and summaries of discussions. Any receipts or statements showing additional fees incurred due to seeking alternative deposit methods are also attached. 

SoFis misleading advertising, inconsistent policy enforcement, and failure to disclose material information have directly impacted me and potentially many other consumers. Their practices not only violate UDAAP regulations but also undermine the trust and integrity expected of financial institutions. I believe SoFi should be held accountable for their actions and required to implement corrective measures to prevent further consumer harm. 

Thank you for your attention to this serious matter. I look forward to your prompt response and resolution of this issue.