Consumer complaint received 2026-06-11 00:00:00
Product: Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service — Mobile or digital wallet
Issue: Unauthorized transactions or other transaction problem — 
Company: Block, Inc.
State: GA

Complaint narrative:
I am requesting that the CFPB reopen and review my complaint regarding Cash App 's handling of unauthorized Bitcoin purchases that were processed through my account. On XX/XX/year>, multiple Bitcoin purchases were made through my Cash App account without my authorization. These transactions were entirely inconsistent with my account history, as I had no prior history of purchasing Bitcoin through Cash App. My concern is no longer limited to the unauthorized transactions themselves. It now includes Cash App 's refusal to meaningfully investigate the matter, its reliance on unsupported conclusions, and its refusal to consider significant new evidence that directly contradicts its findings. Cash App conducted an internal review and repeatedly concluded that the transactions were " authorized by you or someone you authorized to use your credentials '' and that " no error occurred. '' However, despite making this determination, Cash App has failed to provide any evidence supporting its conclusion. In its responses, Cash App specifically stated that it reviewed my account history before reaching its decision. If my account history was in fact reviewed, then Cash App would have seen that I had never previously purchased Bitcoin. Rather than explaining how transactions that were completely inconsistent with my account 's historical activity were determined to be authorized, Cash App simply repeated its conclusion without providing supporting facts. Throughout this process, I repeatedly asked Cash App to explain : What evidence was relied upon to determine the transactions were authorized. What specific information from my account history supported that conclusion. What fraud detection measures, alerts, or security reviews were triggered. Why transactions that were inconsistent with my normal account activity were not flagged as suspicious. How Cash App determined that no fraud or unauthorized access had occurred. To date, none of these questions have been answered. Instead, Cash App has continued to rely on unsupported conclusions while refusing to explain the basis for its findings. Simply stating that a transaction was authorized does not establish that it was authorized. Additionally, Cash App repeatedly shifted focus to a related XXXX transaction even though my primary concern has always been the unauthorized Bitcoin purchases that occurred through Cash App itself. My complaint is centered on Cash App 's failure to detect, prevent, or adequately investigate fraudulent activity occurring on its own platform. The most concerning issue is Cash App 's handling of new evidence that became available after its initial decision. Cash App appears to be relying on the fact that the Bitcoin purchases were made from an XXXX that had previously been associated with my account. However, I informed Cash App, including Cash App manager XXXX, that this device had been legally sold to XXXX and was no longer in my possession at the time the unauthorized transactions occurred. I have since filed a claim with XXXX regarding that device and will be providing the XXXX claim number and supporting documentation as part of this complaint. This evidence is directly relevant because it supports my position that the device used to access the account was no longer under my control. Despite being informed that the phone had been legally sold, despite being provided information regarding the XXXX claim, and despite being notified that a formal law enforcement investigation is underway, Cash App refused to conduct any further review. Instead, XXXX informed me that Cash App had already thoroughly investigated the matter and closed the case without addressing any of the new information after requesting new information to be added and investigated. The logic behind Cash App 's determination is deeply concerning. A device having once been associated with an account does not establish that future activity from that device is authorized. If a consumer legally sells a phone and the new possessor later accesses financial applications on that device and sends money to themselves or makes purchases, those transactions would not automatically become authorized simply because the device was once associated with the original owner. Ownership and possession matter. The critical question is who had control of the device and account at the time of the transactions. Rather than investigating whether unauthorized access occurred after the device left my possession, Cash App appears to have treated prior association with the device as proof of authorization. This conclusion ignores the evidence I provided and fails to address the possibility that the account was accessed by an unauthorized party. This matter is now the subject of a formal law enforcement investigation. I have been informed that records from Cash App and XXXX will be requested as part of that investigation. Law enforcement has advised me that the transactions are being treated as unauthorized and efforts are underway to recover the stolen funds. Despite this, Cash App has refused to explain the basis of its findings, provide supporting evidence, answer basic questions about its investigation, or reconsider its position in light of new evidence. I am requesting that the CFPB review Cash App 's handling of this matter, including : Whether Cash App conducted a reasonable investigation before denying my claim. Whether Cash App has documentation supporting its conclusion that the transactions were authorized. Whether Cash App adequately considered my account history and the unusual nature of the transactions. Whether Cash App properly considered evidence that the device used to conduct the transactions had been legally sold and was no longer in my possession. Whether Cash App complied with its obligations when investigating and responding to my dispute. Why Cash App refused to provide meaningful responses to the questions I repeatedly asked regarding its investigation and findings. I am attaching the document Cash App provided as the basis for its decision does not establish that I authorized these transactions. The document merely shows that a XXXX transaction occurred, that funds were used to purchase Bitcoin, and that the transactions were captured by the system. It does not identify who initiated the transactions, who had possession of the device at the time, what authentication methods were used, whether any fraud alerts were triggered, whether any unusual activity was detected, or what evidence Cash App relied upon to conclude that I authorized the activity. In fact, the documentation contains no analysis at all. It is simply a transaction summary. Cash App appears to be treating proof that the transactions occurred as proof that I authorized them, and those are two entirely different issues. The central question in this dispute is not whether the transactions took place, but whether they were authorized by me. The documentation provided by Cash App does not answer that question and does not address the evidence that the device associated with the transactions had been legally sold and was no longer in my possession at the time the Bitcoin purchases occurred. I am seeking recovery of my stolen funds and a full explanation of the evidence and reasoning Cash App relied upon when denying my claim. I will be providing additional supporting documentation, including the XXXX claim information and, correspondence with Cash App management.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation