Consumer complaint received 2026-01-30 00:00:00
Product: Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service — International money transfer
Issue: Confusing or missing disclosures — 
Company: Remitly, Inc.
State: AZ

Complaint narrative:
Purpose of this submission : This is a follow-up to Remitlys response to my CFPB complaint ( s ). I am submitting this rebuttal to correct materially inaccurate statements made by Remitly and to document unresolved issues that were not addressed in their response.

Inaccurate Statement by Remitly : Remitly states : > As no operational, procedural, or compliance failure occurred on Remitlys part, reimbursement is not warranted, and the complaint is resolved.

This statement is factually inaccurate and contradicted by Remitlys own records, internal actions, and customer support admissions.

Documented Procedural and Compliance Failures : Contrary to Remitlys claim, the following failures occurred XXXX XXXX Multiple investigations were closed as final and later XXXX XXXX reopened XXXX XXXX indicating the original determinations were incomplete. 
* Final resolution decisions were issued before receiving confirmation from the receiving partner bank ( XXXX ). 
XXXX Remitly customer service representatives explicitly stated that XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX had not responded XXXX XXXX to Remitlys inquiries. 
XXXX  Despite the lack of partner bank confirmation, Remitly asserted that the funds were successfully delivered and denied refund eligibility. 
XXXX  I was repeatedly given conflicting explanations by more than XXXX customer service representatives. 
XXXX Refund eligibility was denied due to account suspension, despite the suspension being triggered by my good-faith fraud reporting. 
XXXX Remitly refused to provide transaction-level proof of final delivery while simultaneously asserting certainty that delivery occurred. 

These facts demonstrate clear procedural breakdowns, transparency failures, and premature determinations, directly contradicting Remitlys assertion that no failures occurred. 


XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX Failure : Remitly representatives acknowledged that XXXX XXXX They are limited in their ability to compel partner bank responses. 
XXXX XXXXXXXX failed to respond to Remitly during the investigation.

XXXX  Nonetheless, Remitly relied on the absence of evidence from XXXX to deny reimbursement. 

Issuing final determinations without partner bank confirmation is itself a material investigative failure. 

Unaddressed CFPB Complaints : XXXX claims that it responded to all CFPB complaints submitted. This is incorrect. 

XXXX As of XX/XX/year>, four CFPB complaint submissions received no substantive response. 
XXXX  Remitlys assertion of full regulatory engagement is therefore inaccurate. 

Clarification on Authorization : I am not disputing that the transfers were technically authorized. 

I am disputing the adequacy, integrity, and completeness of Remitlys fraud investigation and escalation process after the fraud was reported.

This matter is not a disagreement over customer expectations. It is a documented case of investigative failure, inconsistent determinations, and inaccurate regulatory representations.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation