Consumer complaint received 2025-10-14 00:00:00
Product: Prepaid card — General-purpose prepaid card
Issue: Problem with a purchase or transfer — Charged for a purchase or transfer you did not make with the card
Company: Block, Inc.
State: VA

Complaint narrative:
On or about XX/XX/XXXX, I attempted to dispute a pending Cash App transaction that I believe was unauthorized and potentially fraudulent. The transaction had not yet cleared or settled at the time of my notice. Despite this, Cash App Support repeatedly refused to take immediate action, claiming they were unable to investigate until the transaction was completed.

This response is factually and legally inaccurate and constitutes a violation of federal consumer financial law, including the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ), 15 U.S.C. 1693 et seq., and its implementing regulation, Regulation E, 12 C.F.R. 1005.11 ( Error Resolution Procedures ).

Under these laws, once a consumer provides notice of an unauthorized or disputed electronic fund transfer, the financial institution is required to promptly investigate, determine whether an error occurred, and report the results within ten business days, or issue a provisional credit if additional time is needed. Cash Apps written policy and its repeated insistence that I must wait for the transaction to clear violate these provisions. 

Cash App ( operating through XXXXXXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX as its financial partners ) has both the technical capability and the fiduciary duty to intercept or reverse a pending transaction before settlement. Their refusal to act while the transaction was still pending represents a failure of due diligence and fiduciary care, as well as a potential unfair or deceptive act or practice ( UDAP ) under 15 U.S.C. 45 ( a ) ( Federal Trade Commission Act ) and parallel state consumer protection laws.

Furthermore, Cash Apps decision to prematurely end live chat communications and insist that I wait for an email follow-up appears to be a tactic designed to delay action until the transaction cleared, thereby denying me legal recourse. This obstructive communication behavior not only violates their own Terms of Service and dispute-resolution policy, but also undermines the statutory intent of the EFTAto provide swift consumer remedies before financial loss becomes permanent.

I have documentation showing : Multiple chat exchanges in which Cash App agents acknowledged my notice but refused to act on the dispute while the transaction was pending. 
A case number ( XXXX ) issued without meaningful escalation or investigation. 
Delays and evasive communication intended to run out the pending window. 
Repeated refusal to provide the name or contact of a supervisor or compliance officer.

This misconduct may also be aggravated by potential interference by external actors or state apparatuses who appear to be influencing, inducing, or obstructing Cash Apps compliance with federal law, thereby violating 42 U.S.C. 1983 ( deprivation of rights under color of law ) if such coordination exists. 

The combined result is financial harm, emotional distress, and systemic discrimination, as Cash Apps delay-based policies disproportionately harm low-income individuals or consumers without access to rapid dispute tools.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation