Consumer complaint received 2026-01-12 00:00:00
Product: Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service — Mobile or digital wallet
Issue: Trouble accessing funds in your mobile or digital wallet — 
Company: Google Compare Credit Cards Inc.
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
I am submitting this complaint regarding Googles handling of my Google account, its identity verification practices, and the restriction and removal of my funds. This complaint is safety-based and concerns Googles failure to accommodate my legally protected status, its insistence on collecting the highest-risk form of personal identifying information despite safer lawful alternatives, and its restriction of my funds during this process.

I am a protected individual enrolled in the Texas Address XXXX XXXX  ( ACP ), administered by the Texas Office of the Attorney General, due to serious safety concerns and a documented history of identity theft and XXXX-related harm. I also provided Google with a XXXX XXXX Determination Letter, which places Google on notice of my protected status under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq. ), including identity theft and XXXX-related safeguards. Under the FCRA, covered entities are required to implement reasonable procedures to prevent re-victimization, minimize the collection of sensitive personal identifying information, and utilize alternative verification methods when available.

In addition to the protections triggered under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, my circumstances are governed by well-established federal survivor-confidentiality standards reflected in the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ), codified at 34 U.S.C. 12291 ( b ) ( 2 ), and the guidance issued by the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ). While XXXX  confidentiality provisions apply directly to covered programs, they articulate a clear federal policy principle : when an entity is on notice that an individual is a XXXX  of XXXX  or identity-related harm, personally identifying information must be minimized, safeguarded, and not compelled in ways that increase risk. XXXX guidance reinforces that demanding full Social Security numbers or Social Security card images from XXXX XXXX, when safer verification alternatives exist, constitutes a failure to apply survivor-centered, safety-informed procedures. 
After receiving a data breach alert, I proactively changed my passwords and phone number to secure my account. I am not asserting that Google caused the breach. These actions were taken in good faith to protect my personal information.

Following these security updates, Google initiated or escalated identity verification and demanded additional information. I cooperated fully and provided extensive documentation, including XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX enrollment letter XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX which contains the program identification number and the official verification pathway through the Texas Office of the Attorney General XXXX My government issued photo identification ( Military ID ) XXXX My XXXX XXXX Determination Letter, which independently places Google on notice of heightened safety and identity-theft protections under the FCRA.

Despite receiving this documentation and being placed on clear notice of my protected status, Google demanded that I provide my full Social Security number and a copy of my Social Security card, not merely the last four digits. This demand is deeply concerning and unsafe given my circumstances.

Once Google was on notice of my ACP participation and XXXX-related protections under the FCRA, it had a clear, lawful, and lower-risk option to validate my identity by verifying my enrollment through the Texas Office of the Attorney General, which administers the XXXX XXXX XXXX and allows third-party verification for this purpose. Google did not utilize this option. Instead, Google continued to insist on disclosure of my full Social Security number and a Social Security card image, disregarding the heightened safety risks associated with such disclosure and ignoring lawful, safer verification pathways that were explicitly provided.

After I sent a formal written notice to Googles executive team explaining my protected status, the documentation I had already provided, and the safety risks involved, Google nonetheless sent an automated email stating, Action needed : Provide more info to verify your identity. This response was sent after Google had already received my XXXX documentation and XXXX XXXX Determination Letter. 

At no point did Google attempt to verify my identity through the Texas Office of the Attorney General. At no point did Google acknowledge my ACP status, my XXXX-related protections under the FCRA, or the federal XXXX-confidentiality standards reflected in XXXX and XXXX guidance XXXX At no point did Google attempt to meet me in the middle or engage in any reasonable accommodation process that prioritized safety.

During this verification process, Google restricted access to my funds and reduced my available balance to XXXX. Approximately XXXX dollars in Google account credit and stored value that belonged to me became inaccessible. These funds were generated by me through legitimate transactions and point conversions. 

No fraud determination was made against me. Conditioning access to my own funds on the disclosure of my full Social Security number and Social Security card, after notice of protected status and safety risk, is unreasonable and coercive.

Googles conduct raises serious consumer protection concerns, including but not limited to : Unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices ( UDAAP ) involving digital account services and stored-value features Failure to implement reasonable procedures to prevent re-victimization after notice under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq. ) Disregard of survivor-confidentiality and safety-first standards articulated in XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( b ) ( XXXX ) ) and reinforced through XXXX guidance Disregard of the purpose and safeguards of thXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, which exists to prevent compelled disclosure of information that creates safety risks Conditioning access to consumer funds on unsafe and disproportionate data collection Failure to reasonably safeguard highly sensitive consumer information after notice of heightened risk This is not a refusal to verify my identity. It is a refusal to expose myself to unnecessary and foreseeable harm when lawful, safer verification methods were clearly available, documented, and provided. 

This complaint concerns a digital wallet and stored-value service where consumer funds were restricted and rendered inaccessible during an identity verification process that disregarded legally protected safety accommodations. 

I am requesting that the CFPB review Googles practices in this matter, including its identity verification demands, handling of consumer funds, and failure to accommodate protected consumers. I am also requesting assistance in restoring access to my funds and ensuring that my account can be verified and maintained without requiring disclosure of my full Social Security number or Social Security card.

Company public response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation