Consumer complaint received 2026-04-27 00:00:00
Product: Payday loan, title loan, personal loan, or advance loan — Earned wage access
Issue: Confusing or missing disclosures — 
Company: Activehours
State: MD

Complaint narrative:
This complaint is filed as a supplement to complaint number XXXX, filed XX/XX/year>, and should be reviewed in conjunction with that record and the supplemental complaint filed this morning addressing bad faith resolution conduct. This filing addresses two distinct and compounding disclosure failures that occurred on XX/XX/year> the day of enrollment and cancellation both of which contributed directly to the misrouting of my paycheck on XX/XX/year> and neither of which has been acknowledged or addressed by EarnIn in any formal response to date. Failure One The Enrollment Misrepresentation On XX/XX/year> at XXXX PM two emails arrived simultaneously. The first was a notification from my payroll provider XXXX confirming that my direct deposit had already been rerouted to EarnIns banking services provided by XXXXXXXX XXXX for my employment at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX. The rerouting had already been executed at the payroll system level at the exact moment that email was received. The second was a confirmation from EarnIn stating that they had received my request to switch my direct deposit to EarnIn and that it could take up to two pay periods for them to see my direct deposit come through. These two communications are materially contradictory and their simultaneous arrival is not coincidental. It is the direct result of how EarnIns enrollment process interfaces with ADPs payroll infrastructure. EarnIns enrollment process triggers an immediate ADP direct deposit rerouting at the payroll system level. This is not a pending request. It is an executed change. XXXX confirmed that execution in real time at XXXX PM on XX/XX/XXXX. Yet EarnIns own enrollment confirmation delivered at the exact same moment characterized the rerouting as a request that could take up to two pay periods to take effect. That characterization is false. EarnIn knows it is false because their business model depends entirely on the immediacy of that XXXX integration. Their product only functions because payroll rerouting executes immediately. The two pay period estimate is not a conservative disclosure. It is a deliberate and material misrepresentation of a process EarnIn knows to be immediate. The Strategic Function of That Misrepresentation The two pay period timeline serves a specific and identifiable purpose. It creates a window of manufactured uncertainty during which a consumer who experiences immediate payroll consequences as I did on XX/XX/XXXX, four days after enrollment is predisposed to attribute those consequences to normal processing delays rather than to an already executed rerouting. EarnIns customer base overwhelmingly uses XXXX and comparable payroll platforms that execute direct deposit changes immediately or within the current pay cycle. EarnIn knows this. Their support infrastructure is built around it. A consumer who has been told their rerouting could take up to two months has been effectively deterred from raising an immediate complaint when their first paycheck is affected because EarnIn has preemptively framed that outcome as an expected processing delay. This is not an incidental overstatement. It is a disclosure designed to suppress the exact category of complaint that my situation represents. Had EarnIns enrollment confirmation accurately stated that the rerouting executes immediately upon enrollment which the simultaneous XXXX notification confirms it does I would have had an accurate understanding of what had already occurred on EarnIns side at XXXX PM on XX/XX/XXXX and the subsequent cancellation interaction would have unfolded entirely differently. Failure Two The Automated System Contradiction and Representative Failure At XXXX PM on XX/XX/XXXX two minutes after enrollment EarnIn support was contacted to cancel the Early Pay enrollment. EarnIns automated support system Earnie correctly identified the cancellation intent. However rather than providing cancellation guidance Earnie immediately delivered contradictory enrollment completion instructions advising contact with the payroll department and updating direct deposit to ensure the paycheck went into a checking account. Those instructions were not cancellation instructions. They were enrollment continuation instructions delivered in direct response to a cancellation request. That contradiction was live in the chat at the moment the community advocate joined the conversation. The representative failed to review the immediately preceding automated exchange before engaging with the cancellation request. That exchange spanning the five to ten minutes between initial contact and the representative joining the chat contained Earnies contradictory instructions in plain view. A proper review of that exchange before confirming cancellation complete would have revealed the contradiction and created the obligation to clarify it. It would also have been the natural and necessary moment to provide direct deposit rerouting instructions. The representative did neither because he did not review what immediately preceded his involvement. At XXXXXXXX XXXX the representative confirmed cancellation was already complete and indicated nothing further was required. That confirmation was delivered without any clarification of the automated contradiction already present in the chat and without any instruction to contact the employer to reroute the direct deposit back to the personal checking account. The disclosure failure at cancellation was therefore not simply a human oversight by one representative. It was the compounded result of an automated system delivering contradictory instructions followed by a representative who confirmed completion without reviewing the context those instructions had created. The Combined Effect At XXXX PM EarnIn told me the rerouting could take up to two pay periods when it had already executed. At XXXX PM EarnIns automated system delivered enrollment continuation instructions in response to a cancellation request. At XXXX PM EarnIns representative confirmed cancellation complete without reviewing that contradiction or providing rerouting instructions. Four days later I learned my paycheck was routed to a closed EarnIn account. EarnIns own representatives subsequently acknowledged in writing that the guidance provided at cancellation was incorrect and that this failure caused the misrouting. That acknowledgment is on record. What is not on record until this filing is that the failure began not at cancellation but at enrollment, with a disclosure that misrepresented the immediacy of a process EarnIn knows to be immediate, delivered simultaneously with the XXXX confirmation that proved it false. The Formal Complaint That Went Unanswered A formal complaint addressing this enrollment misrepresentation was submitted directly to EarnIn through their official complaint channels on XX/XX/year> at XXXX PM. It has received no response. It was not acknowledged. It was not incorporated into EarnIns federal response filed the following day despite being submitted through EarnIns own official complaints infrastructure less than fourteen hours before that filing. Had EarnIns VP of Customer Care continued the direct correspondence she personally initiated on XX/XX/XXXX correspondence she abandoned without answering three questions over 24 hours the existence of this complaint would have surfaced through direct dialogue before any federal response was filed. It did not because that dialogue was abandoned. Please note : the points raised in this filing are not simply my interpretation of the events of XX/XX/year>. They are points that emerged directly through EarnIns own conflict resolution process acknowledged, confirmed, and in several instances formally admitted by EarnIns own representatives, supervisors, an d executive leadership across an entirely written correspondence record spann ing nine days. They are brought to the attention of this federal body because internal dialogue des pite being initiated, documented, and pursued in good faith at every stage was effectively abandoned on multiple occasions by EarnIn across that same record. EarnIn will now demonstrate through their response to this federal body either a contrasting or a comparable approach to the pattern documented here, with whatever urgency they deem this matter deserves.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation