Consumer complaint received 2025-08-08 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Opening an account — Didn't receive terms that were advertised
Company: MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
I am writing to express my strongest objection and outrage at Morgan Stanley XXXX XXXX  / E * TRADEs continued refusal to pay a {$250.00} promotional bonus that I earned by fully meeting every single written requirement. 

1. Factual Background XX/XX/year> I opened a new E * TRADE Bank ( Morgan Stanley Private Bank ) checking account under a published promotional offer : Receive a {$250.00} bonus when you make two qualifying direct deposits of {$1000.00} or more within 90 days of account opening. 

XX/XX/year> First qualifying direct deposit of {$1000.00}. 

XX/XX/year> Second qualifying direct deposit of {$1000.00}. 

Both deposits : Met the stated minimum amount requirement Were completed well within the 90-day window Came from a source that qualified under their own definition of direct deposit Morgan Stanleys own prior correspondence acknowledges that I : Was correctly enrolled in the promotional offer Completed two qualifying direct deposits within the timeframe 2. The Banks Refusal Despite admitting I met all stated terms, Morgan Stanley denied the bonus, citing a vague and undefined reason : The deposits do not appear to have been made in good faith with the intention of maintaining an account. 

This good faith requirement : Appears nowhere in the written promotional terms Has no objective definition in the offer or in any account documentation Was never disclosed at the time of account opening Was applied after I had already met the stated requirements In other words, the bank is retroactively adding new conditions such as an implied requirement to keep funds in the account for an unspecified period that were never disclosed in the original promotion. 

3. Why This Is a Serious Violation This conduct is not simply a customer service disagreement ; it is a clear breach of the written promotional policy and potentially a violation of the CFPBs XXXX standard ( Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts or Practices ) : Deceptive : The promotion induced me to open an account under specific terms, then the bank denied payment based on undisclosed, subjective criteria. 

Unfair : The bank benefited from my account opening and deposits but refused to honor its side of the agreement. 

Abusive : Customers have no way to know about or comply with conditions that are not disclosed in writing. 

If Morgan Stanley intended to require customers to keep deposited funds in the account, maintain a minimum balance, or use the account in a certain way beyond the deposits, those conditions should have been written into the promotional terms. They were not. 

4. This Is Not an Isolated Case In researching this issue, I found other consumers reporting the same problem : Meeting all the written terms of an E * TRADE / Morgan Stanley promotion Later being denied the bonus based on vague accusations of not in good faith or suspicious activity This indicates a possible systemic pattern of using undefined criteria to avoid paying earned bonuses.

5. My Level of Outrage & Next Steps I am extremely angry at Morgan Stanleys blatant disregard for its own written terms and for fair business practices. I have already spent months trying to resolve this directly, only to be met with dismissive, copy-paste responses from their Compliance Department .

If this matter is not resolved promptly, I will : Pursue action in Small Claims Court for breach of contract and unjust enrichment File complaints with : [ State ] Department of Banking / Financial Institutions [ State ] Attorney Generals Consumer Protection Division Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ) for false advertising XXXX XXXX XXXX Publicly report this case to warn other consumers 6. Requested Resolution Immediate payment of the {$250.00} bonus that I have indisputably earned under the stated promotional terms. 

Written assurance that Morgan Stanley will cease using undisclosed, subjective criteria to retroactively disqualify customers from promotions. 

7. Why CFPB Should Intervene This is not about {$250.00} it is about truth in advertising, contract integrity, and consumer protection. If financial institutions can arbitrarily add conditions after consumers have performed, the written terms of any promotion become meaningless. 

I respectfully urge the CFPB to investigate this matter as a potential UDAAP violation with implications for many consumers, not just my individual case.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation