Consumer complaint received 2025-12-29 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Savings account
Issue: Managing an account — Problem making or receiving payments
Company: U.S. BANCORP
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
U.S. Banks Online Bill Pay uses a misleading account-selection design that repeatedly causes payments to be drawn from the wrong account during the add new payee make first payment workflow. 

I have a default/primary Bill Pay funding account set to my checking account. However, when I add a new payee, the payment screen does not honor that default and instead pre-selects a different account ( specifically, the first account in the listoften my savings ). This is not a one-off mistake ; it is a repeatable interface behavior that creates a predictable trap where the consumer proceeds under the reasonable expectation that the default setting will apply. 

The consequence is foreseeable and recurring monetary harm : unintended bill-pay withdrawals from my savings account drop the balance below the minimum needed to waive U.S. Banks monthly maintenance fee, triggering fees. U.S. Banks own complaint response confirms monthly maintenance fees assessed multiple times and denies remediation.

This is a digital dark pattern/ deceptive design problem : a default account setting communicates a material expectation, but the product silently overrides it at the most error-prone moment ( first payment after new payee creation ). The CFPB has warned that digital dark patternsdesign features used to deceive, steer, or manipulate users into outcomes contrary to their intentcan be unlawful under UDAAP standards.

This conduct appears to meet the UDAAP framework under the Consumer Financial Protection Act ( CFPA ).

Legal Information Institute Deceptive : The product represents that a Bill Pay primary/default account governs payments, but the interface overrides it during new-payee setup without clear, unavoidable disclosure. U.S. Banks response acknowledges a primary account for Bill Pay, but that does not address the misleading pre-selection behavior that occurs during the new-payee workflow.

Unfair : The design causes monetary injury ( fees ) that consumers can not reasonably avoid when using the product as intended ; the harm is predictable from the workflow design ( biased defaults / misdirection ) and not outweighed by benefits.

Abusive ( as applicable ) : U.S. Bank has been on notice ( multiple prior reports by me ) and still refuses to fix the defect, while continuing to assess/retain fee revenue when the design misroutes payments. CFPB guidance recognizes dark-pattern style manipulation as a serious compliance risk.

I previously reported this issue multiple times to U.S. Bank and escalated to CFPB ( Case # XXXX ). In U.S. Banks written response dated XX/XX/year>, the bank states it was unable to find any past cases opened regarding the Bill Pay feature and denies any bank error, refusing compensation.

That response is inadequate and raises a separate concern : complaint tracking/recordkeeping failure and a refusal to remediate a repeated UI defect that predictably causes fees.

Evidence I can provide : Video demonstration showing the exact steps where the default/primary account is overridden and the wrong account is pre-selected during new payee creation ( hosted at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ). 

Screenshots of the default-account setting and the new-payee payment screen showing the wrong pre-selected account.

Account statements highlighting fee assessment dates and the triggering transaction ( s ).

The banks written response denying error and refund ( dated XX/XX/year> ).

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