Consumer complaint received 2026-02-05 00:00:00
Product: Prepaid card — General-purpose prepaid card
Issue: Problem with a purchase or transfer — Card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase or transfer
Company: Block, Inc.
State: HI

Complaint narrative:
CFPB FORMAL COMPLAINT : CONSUMER STATEMENT DATE : XX/XX/XXXX RE : Order # XXXX | Transaction Date : XX/XX/XXXX | Amount : {$610.00} PARTIES INVOLVED : the consumer /victim, The merchant ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ), XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX cash app ) SUBJECT : Material Misrepresentation, Non-Conforming Goods, Latent Defect, Customs Fraud XXXX Tariff Evasion, Commercial Misrepresentation, Bait and Switch, Fraud in the Inducement, Circumvention of XXXX, Falsification of Documents, Wire Fraud, Breach of Express Warranty, Unjust Enrichment, Substantive Fraud, Unjust Unconscionability, Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, Failure of Consideration ( Services Not Rendered ), Facilitation of Fraud , Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts or Practices ( UDAAP ), Bad Faith Adjudication, and False Advertisement I the victim/consumer am reaching out to the CFPB for help because I have been victimized by a sophisticated international fraud scheme, and my bank, XXXX XXXX ( Cash App ), is refusing to protect me. They are hiding behind an internal " XXXX rule '' to deny my claim, but I am well within the XXXX window mandated by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. This isn't just a " bad purchase '' this involves Wire Fraud and Customs Fraud that the merchant has actually admitted to in writing. 


I filed a formal dispute for a full reversal of funds, On the grounds of : XXXX. " Material Misrepresentation, '' " Non-Conforming Goods, '' and " Latent Defect The products were explicitly advertised and sold as " 100 % Raw Vietnamese human hair. It appears as high quality until it is subjected to styling products, styling tools/Heat or moisture ( even if it is in the air ). The quality will fail and start to exhibit its true synthetic composition by melting, extreme tangling and matting until it eventually begins to shed/deteriorate completely overtime. It is common knowledge and common practice that most reputable Wig companies ( that manufacture 100 % human hair wigs ) have an explicit return policy, that once you work/style a unit ( even if you just wash it ), you void your right for a return. This is a clear case of " consumer catch XXXX ''. In order to discover these defects, I had to work/use the hair. However, once used, XXXX system rejects return requests. These defects are " latent '' you have to use the product to find the defect, the act of using it was then used by the merchant to void my protection. 

XXXX. XXXX XXXX, Tariff Evasion, Commercial Misrepresentation, Bait and Switch, Fraud in the Inducement, Circumvention of Safeguards, Falsification of Documents, Wire Fraud, Deceptive Trade Practices, Breach of Express Warranty, Mail Fraud, Unjust Enrichment The merchant ( XXXX XXXX / XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) utilized a fraudulent " Tax-Free '' dummy shipping address in XXXX on XXXX official XXXX order XXXX to bypass XXXX XXXXe ( I did not realize this at the time ) I was fully willing to pay any necessary taxes or shipping fees. 
The Merchant was solely responsible for her own actions, using a tax free address, the mislabeling, and her tax inclusive courier service. 
When she told me that she had already shipped the items, she sent me a copy of the shipping document and in the contents section I saw it was labeled " XXXX synthetic '', andeven though it was too late to mention anything ( because she had already shipped the package ) I asked her if she was sure that these units being sent were " 100 % XXXX XXXX XXXX  '' and she replied ( lied ) to me : stating " Yes friend, it is XXXX XXXX XXXX. " I purchased the units on XX/XX/XXXX. When I finally recieved the package at my ftont door via XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX, I examined them quickly and they appeared to be actual hair though I noticed there were no labels on the bag or tags on the units stating their fiber content ( 100 % human hair ). On XX/XX/XXXX I had a social event to attend and I decided to finally use XXXX of the units ( XXXX inch loose deep wave {$390.00} ) that is when I discovered the defects. The XXXX began to exhibit extreme tangling and matting the moment it hit the water, it did not react in any way that is consistent with " natural human hair ''. The reaction was a catastrophic, the strands began to tangle clump up and become matted ( As synthetic wigs do when exposed to moisture ). XX/XX/XXXX I took the wig unit to a professional hair dresser/wig enthusiast for a " second opinion '' the hair technician, apologized to me because unfortunately " " the wig units are not 100 % human but infact made of a " synthetic blend. '' " when I first initiated a complaint to the merchant, on XX/XX/XXXX, she told me the factory had verified my order as " 100 % human hair '', I then confronted her about the synthetic labeling on the shipping documents and she claimed the hair was human, and that the mislabeling is a kind of common practice between the merchant and the shipping company to avoid paying tariffs, involving me ( unknowingly ) in a federal crime. I believe she did this in an attempt to discredit me once I did discover the fraud, and tried to submit any claim. The fact is I paid for XXXX raw human hair wig units at {$600.00} ( the final total was {$610.00} ) and even offered to pay extra for a rush shipment The merchant told me If I purchased these XXXX, my shipping would be FREE. From there on, as far as I knew at the time, the shipping etc ..., was the duty of the merchant who is solely responsible for getting the products to me as far as I was concerned Her business practices, methods and ways of doing things were irrelevant to me, the way she stated these things to me I was under the impression as though she were providing me with legitimate customer service, I did not know her intentions were to commit federal crimes, defraud me, exploit me and this transaction to do so. As a new user to the XXXX platform with a lack of knowledge and experience concerning the processes and laws of importing and exporting goods, I believe I was targeted and taken full advantage of by this predatory seller who I had whole-heartedly trusted not to do something like this to me. 


XXXX. " Violation of the FTC Textile Act '' I received these wig units in generic plastic packaging that only stated their length & texture but not their Fiber Composition ( It did not say on their individual bags if they were 100 % human or 100 % synthetic wig units ) The Textile Fiber Products Identification Act and FTC 16 CFR Part XXXX require that all hair products be labeled accurately regarding their fiber content ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX mislabeled or unlabeled textile products is an illegal trade practice. A bank can not force me to pay for a transaction that was carried out through illegal means ( unlabeled bags/mislabeled contents ). 



XXXX. " My attempt to return the items, the atrocious merchant and the unsatisfactory dispute resolution. '' When XXXX would not step in I was left XXXX deal with this merchant on my own, I was willing to return the items as well as pay to ship it back, as long as the merchant gave me their iron clad word that I would get back 100 % refund of what I paid for the XXXX units because they are not 100 % authentic. However, the merchants response was that the factory would only accept a return for the XXXX straight synthetic blended wig unit I did not use ( {$200.00} ), that it didn't even matter if I didn't send it back in its original packaging, as long as the wig unit was unused and could be resold ( passed off as a brand new fraudulent unit to another unsuspecting customer ). 
This was not a satisfactory solution, it shouldn't matter if I had worked with it or not the defects were latent and they were not the 100 % raw vietnamese human hair wig units that I paid {$610.00} for. After discovering how strategic and sophisticatedly I had been defrauded and that I unknowingly been coerced into this merchants illegal activities, and that this entire transaction was illegal from the start, I Realized the true atrocious nature of this merchant, her deceptiveness and questionable business practices, not underestimating what she could be capable of, I no longer felt safe having any further correspondence with this individual " XXXX XXXX '' or the hair factory in which she claimed to answer to. under XXXX XXXX XXXX, I am not required to return merchandise when the merchant has engaged in material misrepresentation and illegal business practices that make a return legally compromised or unsafe. 


XXXX. " Deceptive Trade Practices ( Bait-and-Switch ), Substantive Unconscionability, Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, Failure of Consideration ( Services Not Rendered ), Facilitation of Fraud Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts or Practices ( UDAAP ), Bad Faith Adjudication, False Advertising '' The platform XXXX, That facilitated this transaction engaged in Deceptive Trade Practices by advertising a contractual guarantee ( Trade Assurance ) that they fundamentally failed to honor, despite clear evidence of merchant fraud. This constitutes XXXX XXXX and a XXXX of XXXX XXXX. XXXX marketing materials and XXXX XXXX ' advertisements promised XXXX % XXXX XXXX ' and a XXXX XXXX ' if the product did not match the description. I relied on these promises of transparency and legitimacy when choosing to shop here and purchase from XXXX of their 'Verified Suppliers. ' It boasts claims that no other e-commerce platform does, providing millions of customers with nothing more than a false sense of security, a sense of security that led me to confidently shop and purchase there as a new customer. I reached out to XXXX XXXX constantly. Despite XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX of their own dispute rules ( concerning fraud ), XXXX would not waive, override or extend any of its policies or return windows. I was repeatedly denied on the grounds that I was past the XX/XX/XXXX day window. I chatted with customer support on the platform as well as through E-mail, I submitted screen shots of the conversation between the merchant and I, I submitted dispute letter after dispute letter explaining the fraud and warning them that if a satisfactory resolution was not met, that I would report the incident to the FTC. On my final attempt, trying to explain this matter to a different representative ( with hope that I would get a better or atleast different outcome ) after I provided all evidence of the merchant 's fraud and confession, the XXXX support agent closed the chat session with me without explanation. This total disregard is why I have filed with the Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ) both against the merchant for XXXX fraud and the XXXX e-commerce platform for facilitating fraudulent transactions, and not keeping to what the platform boast in their advertisements, so as a last resort I filed for a chargeback with my financial institution ( XXXXXXXX XXXX ) as a last attempt to seek justice. 


DENIED PASSED THE XXXX DAY WINDOW I never knew I could ask my bank for a chargeback until I realized I was a victim of a crime and began to do my research. I am a hard-working person who was targeted by a sophisticated scam. My bank ( XXXXXXXX XXXX ) wont help me so now I am seeking justice from the CFPB. XXXXXXXX XXXX denied my claim because of a " XXXX '' internal rule. However, because this is a XXXX XXXX XXXX, they are required to follow XXXX XXXX XXXX. This rule gives me XXXX days to dispute items that are " Not as Described. '' I am well within that XXXX window.Given the recent FDIC Consent Orders against XXXXXXXX XXXX regarding their failure to monitor XXXXparty risk and their history of deficient fraud investigations, their refusal to honor the XXXX XXXX dispute window in this case is a continuation of documented regulatory negligence. 
XXXXXXXX XXXX is currently operating under FDIC Consent Order ( FDIC-23-0104b ) due to deficiencies in their oversight of third-party programs and consumer compliance. By refusing to honor the Visa XXXX dispute window for a documented case of Wire Fraud and Dummy Address manipulation, the Bank is continuing the exact patterns of regulatory negligence identified by the FDIC. Their internal XXXX policy does not supersede Federal consumer protections or XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 
XXXXXXXX XXXX is facilitating this fraud activity through regulatory negligence and a failure to exercise due diligence. Essentially, by strictly following an internal " XXXX '' calendar rather than investigating the actual facts, they are acting as a " clearinghouse '' for a criminal scheme. 










Here is exactly how they are facilitating it : XXXX. Violation of the " XXXX XXXX Rules '' When XXXXXXXX XXXX issued me that Visa Debit card, they signed a contract with Visa. Under XXXX XXXX XXXX, they are required to protect me for XXXX days in cases of " XXXX Not as Described. '' The Facilitation : By ignoring the XXXX rule and using a shorter XXXX window, they are effectively protecting the merchants stolen money instead of your consumer rights. 




XXXX. Ignoring " XXXX XXXX '' ( XXXX XXXX ) In a proper fraud investigation, a bank is supposed to look at the shipping data. 
The Facilitation : The records show the merchant shipped to a Tax-Free address in XXXX while XXXX am in XXXX  This is a massive red flag for " XXXX XXXX. '' By refusing to look at this discrepancy, the bank is allowing the merchant to use their financial system to complete a Wire Fraud scheme. 





XXXX. Assisting in " Customs Fraud '' The merchant admitted in writing that she mislabeled the goods to evade U.S. taxes. 
The Facilitation : Once I notified the bank of this admission, they became " on notice '' of a crime. By refusing to reverse the charge, they are helping the merchant successfully collect the proceeds of a Federal Customs Violation. Under Anti-Money Laundering ( XXXX  ) laws, banks are supposed to stop transactions that involve illegal activity. 







XXXX. Failure to Recognize " Latent Defects '' Banking law ( and the UCC ) recognizes that some frauds are hidden.

The Facilitation : The bank is acting as if I should have known the hair was fake the day it arrived. By not acknowledging that the defect was latent ( hidden until water was applied ), they are holding me to an impossible standard of inspection, which favors the scammer. 





XXXX. Lack of Oversight ( The FDIC Connection ) As mentioned earlier, the FDIC Consent Order ( XXXX ) specifically called out XXXXXXXX XXXX for not properly monitoring its partners like Cash App. 
The Facilitation : They have outsourced their " customer service '' to Cash App 's automated bots and low-level agents who aren't trained in complex fraud. This " laziness '' in their business model creates a safe haven for international scammers to operate without fear of a chargeback. 






I am a victim of sophisticated international merchant fraud. I performed extensive due diligence to substantiate these criminal allegations before filing. XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX refusal to exercise my XXXX XXXX rights allows a predatory merchant to retain funds obtained through illegal trade practices. I humbly ask that the CFPB compel XXXX XXXX to reopen this investigation and process a full reversal of the {$610.00}. the banks failure to act constitutes a secondary injury to me ( the consumer/victim ) As a frequent user of various e-commerce platforms, I have never encountered a situation of this magnitude. Of all things that could go wrong, you never expect a problem like this. I never knew a simple process could become so complicated by just XXXX persons selfish motives. Initially, I was hesitant to come forward, assumingbased on past experiencesthat I would simply have to absorb the financial loss. However, given the significant cost of these items and the profound sense of injustice I felt by this merchant and a platform that underhandedly gained my trust, I refused to remain silent. my delay is due to the facts that these defects were latent and Because of my serious allegations of fraud, I felt a professional and ethical obligation to ensure my case was 100 % substantiated before filing. This period of due diligence was necessary to confirm that the products received were not merely " low quality, '' but a legally non-conforming items that violates federal standards. Despite the time it took to I gather the technical evidence necessary to prove that I am a victim of a sophisticated fraudulent transaction I made sure i was still within XXXX  day visa window. 

Sincerely, XXXX

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation