Consumer complaint received 2025-09-26 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Other debt
Issue: Took or threatened to take negative or legal action — Threatened or suggested your credit would be damaged
Company: Affirm Holdings, Inc
State: LA

Complaint narrative:
I am filing this complaint against Affirm.com because their conduct represents not only a personal injustice to me but also a systemic violation of fair lending and collection practices. The amount in question is {$25.00}. I have offered, in good faith, to pay Affirm the {$25.00} directly, to them as the creditor, not to any third-party collector. My offer was clear and unconditional : resolve the balance directly, restore my account, and end the matter. Affirm has refused to acknowledge or accept this offer, and instead continues to deny me use of their service. This is not only irrational but is also, in my view, a calculated act designed to escalate my account into collections and to extract more than what is owed through punitive mechanisms. 
From a legal standpoint, Affirms refusal to accept a direct payment from me, the debtor, raises significant concerns under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) and related consumer protection regulations. While Affirm may argue it is not itself a debt collector under the FDCPA, its refusal to accept a lawful tender of payment in full creates a scenario where the debt can be needlessly transferred to third-party collectors. This is not neutralit is a form of bad faith that results in avoidable harm to the consumers credit standing and subjects me to potential harassment and fees. The FDCPA was specifically designed to prevent abusive and coercive collection practices, and Affirms conduct here is effectively setting the stage for precisely that outcome. 
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) has emphasized that creditors and servicers are obligated to act in good faith, to provide accurate and transparent information, and to avoid unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices ( UDAAPs ) under the Dodd-Frank Act. By refusing a direct payment, Affirm engages in what can only be described as an abusive practice : it subverts the reasonable expectations of a consumer, manufactures financial instability where none need exist, and exposes me to unnecessary economic risk. The Bureau has made clear that creditors can not create barriers to repayment that are designed to profit off penalties and third-party collection mechanisms. Yet Affirm is doing exactly that. 
From an economic perspective, the irrational refusal of a corporation to resolve a small, clearly acknowledged balance of {$24.00} demonstrates perverse incentives. Affirm appears to profit not from debt resolution but from debt escalationmore fees, more damage to credit, more leverage over the consumer. It is cheaper for them to obstruct and funnel accounts into punitive channels than to honor their duty to accept fair repayment. This reveals an industry-wide pathology : corporate greed thrives on the perpetuation of debt, not its closure. 
From a criminological perspective, Affirms actions resemble constructive fraud and economic coercion. When a consumer attempts to fulfill their obligation and is blocked, only to be threatened with harsher consequences later, the line between corporate bureaucracy and extortionary practice blurs. The refusal to accept lawful tender and the subsequent withholding of services is a coercive act, effectively holding my financial standing XXXX until Affirm decides it can extract greater profit through other means. 
From a sociological perspective, this situation illustrates the way corporations use bureaucratic opacity as a weapon. I am deliberately denied resolution, denied clarity, and denied participation in good faith. My complianceoffering full repaymentis met not with cooperation but with exclusion. This teaches consumers that even when they attempt to act responsibly, the system will punish them. The result is erosion of trust in the financial system itself. 
This is, at its core, corporate corruption and greed masquerading as legitimate financial policy. Affirm has no rational reason to deny my payment ; the only explanation is profit-driven obstruction. This is not an administrative error or a misunderstandingit is a method, a deliberate design to exploit consumers by maximizing punishment, not resolution. 
Therefore, I respectfully demand that the CFPB investigate Affirms practices for potential violations of : The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), to the extent that Affirms actions facilitate abusive collection tactics. 
The CFPBs authority under the Dodd-Frank Act to prohibit unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices ( UDAAPs ). 
Federal standards requiring creditors and servicers to accept legitimate payments tendered by borrowers in good faith. 
I ask that Affirm be compelled to accept my {$25.00} payment directly, restore my account, and cease obstructive practices that manufacture debt escalation. This is not merely a dispute over $ XXXX is a matter of systemic abuse that undermines consumer rights and exposes the corruption at the XXXX of Affirms business practices.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation