Consumer complaint received 2026-02-18 00:00:00
Product: Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service — Mobile or digital wallet
Issue: Fraud or scam — 
Company: Block, Inc.
State: OK

Complaint narrative:
This is a follow-up complaint regarding Cash Apps handling of my fraud dispute involving a {$650.00} payment sent to XXXX XXXXXXXX. 
Cash App has now denied my initial dispute and subsequent appeal, stating only : After carefully reviewing the details of your appeal, we found that our original decision was correct. This decision is final. 
However, Cash App has not demonstrated that it conducted a reasonable investigation as required under federal law. 
XXXX. Failure to Conduct Reasonable Error Investigation Regulation XXXX Under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( 15 U.S.C. XXXX et seq. ) and Regulation XXXX ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ), when a consumer reports an error involving an electronic fund transfer, the financial institution must : Conduct a good-faith investigation Review all relevant information provided by the consumer Report the results of the investigation I provided : Proof of business impersonation A fake business card used to induce payment The legitimate business owners written statement confirming impersonation The business owners direct phone number for verification Cash App has not indicated that it contacted the identified victim business, reviewed the impersonation evidence meaningfully, or explained how it determined no fraud occurred despite documented misrepresentation. 
A conclusory denial without explanation does not satisfy Regulation XXXX requirement for a reasonable investigation. 
XXXX. Mischaracterization of Fraud as a Service Dispute This matter involves fraudulent inducement through impersonation of a legitimate business. The payment was obtained through material misrepresentation. Impersonation to obtain funds constitutes fraud regardless of whether any partial or defective service was later attempted. 
Cash App appears to have treated this as a buyer-seller dissatisfaction dispute rather than a fraud investigation involving impersonation. 
XXXX. Unfair Practice Concerns ( Dodd-Frank Act, XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) Denying a fraud claim despite verified third-party confirmation of impersonation, without demonstrating investigative steps, raises concerns of unfair practices under the Consumer Financial Protection Act. A consumer suffers substantial financial injury when a platform refuses to act despite clear evidence of fraudulent inducement. 
XXXX. Repeated Denials Without Substantive Explanation I have attempted to dispute this matter multiple times. Each denial has been generic and non-responsive to the evidence submitted. No explanation has been provided addressing : Why documented impersonation does not qualify as fraud Whether the business owner was contacted What investigative steps were taken How the conclusion was reached A final decision without transparency regarding investigative steps suggests the evidence was not meaningfully reviewed. 
Requested Resolution I am requesting : Written confirmation of the specific investigative steps taken Clarification as to whether the impersonated business owner was contacted A reconsideration of the fraud determination based on documented misrepresentation Reimbursement of the {$650.00} payment obtained through impersonation If Cash App maintains its denial, I request that the CFPB review whether Cash App is complying with Regulation XXXX investigation requirements when consumers report fraud involving impersonation.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation