Consumer complaint received 2026-05-27 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: Block, Inc.
State: LA

Complaint narrative:
CFPB REBUTTAL / REQUEST FOR XXXX XXXX ( XXXX Submission Continuing XXXX XXXX Procedural Violations ) Consumer : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, LA XXXX Institution : Cash App / Block , Inc . Related CFPB Complaints : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX I respectfully submit this additional rebuttal because Cash Apps latest response continues to materially mischaracterize both the facts and procedural history of this matter. At this point, the issue is no longer the underlying {$35.00} XXXX refund itself. The issue is whether Cash App conducted a reasonable, compliant XXXX XXXX investigation at the time the dispute was initially denied or whether the company improperly denied the claim, misclassified the dispute, continued investigating for nearly XXXX months afterward, and only reversed course after repeated escalation and CFPB involvement. The documentary record now overwhelmingly supports the latter. I. CASH APP KNEW FROM DAY XXXX THIS WAS A MISSING REFUND CASE Cash Apps own records directly contradict its repeated attempts to frame this matter as merely an authorized transaction dispute. The documentation Cash App itself produced confirms : Dispute Reason : I was supposed to receive a refund Do you have a refund receipt from the merchant? : Yes Share the refund receipt from the merchant : [ XXXX file uploaded ] Cash App therefore had actual knowledge, at the outset of the dispute, that : XXXX the original XXXX transaction was not being disputed as unauthorized ; XXXX. XXXX had already issued a confirmed refund ; XXXX the issue involved a missing inbound credit/refund reconciliation problem. Despite this, Cash App denied the dispute within approximately XXXX hours using boilerplate language asserting that : the transaction was processed in accordance with the payment information received and that no error occurred. That response failed to address the actual issue presented : whether the merchant-issued refund was properly received, reconciled, posted, rejected, unmatched, or otherwise mishandled after issuance. Cash App investigated whether the original XXXX purchase was authorized an issue I never disputed while failing to meaningfully address the missing refund itself. XXXX. CASH APPS OWN RECORDS PROVE THE INVESTIGATION WAS NOT ACTUALLY COMPLETE ON XX/XX/year> Cash App now repeatedly claims that : a final determination was issued on XX/XX/year> ; the investigation was completed within XXXX XXXX timelines ; and therefore no provisional credit obligations existed. However, XXXX XXXX own records and communications directly undermine that position. The documented timeline shows : XX/XX/year> dispute submitted XX/XX/year> claim denied XX/XX/year> formal appeal submitted XX/XX/year> Cash App states it contacted Apple regarding the dispute XXXX 2026 repeated representations that the matter remained under active review XX/XX/year> Cash App reverses its position and issues permanent credit Most importantly, Cash App itself informed me : We received your appeal and will get back to you by XXXX XXXX. That representation alone demonstrates that the matter remained under active investigation long after the XX/XX/XXXX denial Cash App now characterizes as final. Additionally, Cash App repeatedly informed me throughout XXXX and XXXX that : XXXX teams were reviewing the matter ; additional investigation was ongoing ; and the dispute process could take up to XXXX days. Cash App can not simultaneously maintain that : the investigation was fully completed and properly resolved on XX/XX/XXXX ; while also maintaining an active review and escalation process for nearly XXXX additional months before reversing its determination. Those positions are fundamentally inconsistent. XXXX. CASH APPS ACTIONS DIRECTLY CONTRADICT ITS NO ERROR OCCURRED POSITION Cash App repeatedly stated that : no error occurred. However : the company later reopened review activity; contacted the merchant after the denial ; continued investigative handling for weeks; escalated the matter internally ; and ultimately issued permanent credit in my favor on XX/XX/year>. Cash App still refuses to explain : what investigative findings changed between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX ; what evidence caused reversal of the original denial ; whether a settlement trace or network inquiry was conducted ; whether the refund was ever actually received ; whether the refund failed to post internally ; whether an ARN or settlement identifier existed ; or why the matter was repeatedly framed as an authorization dispute despite being documented internally as an Expected Refund dispute. If the XX/XX/XXXX determination had truly been complete, accurate, and reasonable, there would have been no basis for : continued investigative activity, merchant outreach, internal escalation, prolonged review, or eventual reversal in my favor. IV. CASH APPS CFPB RESPONSES CONTINUE TO OMIT MATERIAL FACTS Cash Apps CFPB responses repeatedly omit or minimize highly relevant facts, including : that the refund documentation was supplied at the outset ; that the dispute was internally categorized as an Expected Refund claim ; that Cash App later contacted XXXX after the denial ; that the matter remained under active review through late XXXX ; that support representatives acknowledged the matter was not properly investigated initially ; and that the company ultimately reversed its own determination nearly XXXX months later. Instead, Cash App repeatedly attempts to isolate the XX/XX/XXXX denial from the remainder of the chronology, despite the companys own records demonstrating continuous post-denial investigative activity. That presentation materially mischaracterizes the actual procedural history of this matter. V. XXXX XXXX CONCERNS REMAIN UNRESOLVED This matter continues to raise serious concerns regarding : failure to conduct a reasonable investigation into the actual claimed error ; investigation of the wrong issue type ; premature denial despite supplied refund documentation ; inconsistent and contradictory investigative representations ; failure to clearly explain investigative findings ; failure to provide trace or settlement-level documentation ; and use of an appeal framework to continue investigating the same underlying error while simultaneously claiming the XXXX XXXX investigation had already been fully completed. Cash Apps eventual issuance of credit does not erase the deficiencies reflected throughout the handling of this dispute. To the contrary, the eventual reversal strongly suggests that the original denial was incomplete, inaccurate, or procedurally deficient. VI. REQUEST FOR SUPERVISORY REVIEW I respectfully request continued supervisory review regarding : whether Cash Apps XX/XX/XXXX determination constituted a reasonable XXXX XXXX investigation ; whether the dispute was improperly categorized and investigated ; whether XXXX XXXX later investigative conduct contradicts its assertion that the investigation had already been fully completed ; whether Cash Apps handling of this matter complied with XXXX XXXX procedural safeguards ; and whether Cash Apps CFPB responses accurately and completely represent the procedural history of this dispute. This matter became unnecessarily prolonged, burdensome, and difficult over a straightforward missing refund investigation that Cash App knew from the beginning involved a confirmed merchant-issued refund. Instead of promptly conducting a proper trace and reconciliation review, Cash App repeatedly denied, redirected, escalated, reopened, recharacterized, and contradicted itself for nearly XXXX months before ultimately reversing its position only after persistent escalation and CFPB involvement. XXXX XXXX

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation