Consumer complaint received 2026-02-11 00:00:00
Product: Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service — Virtual currency
Issue: Fraud or scam — 
Company: Coinbase, Inc.

Complaint narrative:
INTRODUCTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE I am exercising my right to seek redress and formally request your organizations intervention in conducting an impartial investigation to resolve my dispute with Coinbase. Given your role in overseeing financial entities and ensuring adherence to regulatory standards, I trust your organization will facilitate a fair and objective review of this matter. 

To eliminate any ambiguity arising from my previous attempts to engage Coinbase through extensive correspondence, I believe a structured examination of my case will significantly enhance both my position and your understanding of the facts, misconduct, and regulatory implications at hand. 

It is important to highlight that I was manipulated, socially engineered, and coerced into engaging with fraudulent actors, leading to substantial financial harm. While I acknowledge the circumstances that led to this unfortunate event, my grievance arises from Coinbases failure to uphold its obligations as a financial institution entrusted with safeguarding customer assets and ensuring compliance with industry standards. 

Throughout my attempts to resolve this matter with Coinbase, their communication has been inadequate, obstructing transparency and accountability. Their handling of my complaint does not align with regulatory expectations, their own internal policies, or the standards set by your organization. 

I seek your intervention to address these failings and facilitate an appropriate resolution in accordance with the principles of fairness, accountability, and consumer protection. 

GENERAL OBLIGATION On XX/XX/year>, I fell victim to a multi-layered scam operation orchestrated by wallet hackers, resulting in the loss of XXXX XXXX XXXX, which was facilitated through Coinbase. 

Financial entities, regardless of their operational model, owe a duty of care to their customers and the broader financial ecosystem. Traditional financial institutions are legally required to exercise the skill and diligence of a competent and vigilant financial entity, adhering to international best practices in fraud detection, anti-money laundering ( AML ), and consumer protection. 

In this case, Coinbase had a duty to identify, assess, and act upon red flags that indicated a high probability of fraud. A financial service provider can not simply turn a blind eye to objective warning signs that a transaction is associated with illicit activity. This standard applies universallywhether through Know Your Customer ( KYC ) obligations, risk assessment protocols, fraud prevention mechanisms, or transaction monitoring systems.

While interpretations of reasonableness may vary, the core principle remains the same : the obligation to apply reasonable care in all circumstances, not merely to follow industry norms at their lowest threshold. The fact that many institutions may routinely overlook risks does not justify negligence. A responsible entity must proactively prevent foreseeable harm rather than react only after financial losses occur.

Given the patterns of fraud that have emerged in similar cases, it is imperative that institutions learn from past failures and refine their protective measures. The evidence in this case strongly suggests that Coinbase failed to exercise reasonable foresight, disregarding key warning signs and failing to intervene despite the clear risks involved.

Coinbases Position & RESPONSE Coinbase contends that the circumstances of this case do not establish a genuine obligation to protect victims from fraudulent schemes. Their position effectively rejects the application of practical safeguards, industry standards, and common-sense protections, instead favoring a strictly technical and self-serving interpretation of responsibility. Despite the severity of this issue and the substantial evidence provided, Coinbase has failed to afford it the attention it rightfully demands.

In its response, Coinbase implicitly suggests that unwritten obligations, reasonable judgment, practical safeguards, and lessons from past incidents should be disregarded in favor of a rigid legalistic approach. This stance is both illogical and reckless, as it contradicts well-established principles of financial accountability, consumer protection, and best practices upheld by financial and regulatory institutions worldwide.

After carefully reviewing Coinbases response, it is evident that they fail to address the fundamental issue at handtheir duty of care. Given their size, influence, and vast technological resources, they were far better positioned than an individual consumer to identify risks and intervene where necessary, particularly in relation to high-risk, out-of-pattern transactions. Their failure to do so constitutes a clear lapse in their responsibility to mitigate foreseeable harm. 

Moreover, Coinbase has avoided directly engaging with the key arguments raised in this complaint. Instead, their response appears crafted to protect their own interests rather than to uphold their duty of care. This approach is not only inadequate but also contradicts regulatory expectations, which emphasize that financial service providers should proactively implement safeguards to prevent fraudulent exploitation of their platforms. 

It is neither fair nor sustainable to shield financial entities behind self-serving technicalities while vulnerable victims suffer severe financial consequences. This approach not only enables systemic fraud but also fundamentally contradicts the purpose of financial regulation, ethical responsibility, and the principles of justice.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation