Consumer complaint received 2025-11-21 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Savings account
Issue: Opening an account — Didn't receive terms that were advertised
Company: SOFI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
State: MD

Complaint narrative:
On XX/XX/XXXX, I transferred {$30000.00} into a SoFi high yield savings account after seeing SoFis promotional language stating Supercharge your savings and earn up to 4.30 % APY and Earn up to 4.30 % APY on the account opening page. These statements appeared prominently and implied that opening the account would provide access to the advertised APY. The conditions were not clearly presented on the pages I accessed when I signed up for the account. 

After depositing the funds, I discovered that my APY was conditional on meeting recurring XXXXday requirements that were not made clear upfront. The requirement shown to me only after depositing stated : To keep earning our highest APY *, at least XXXX account holder must complete XXXX of the following : Receive a direct deposit every XXXXDay Evaluation Period, Deposit {$5000.00} or more every XXXXDay Evaluation Period, Pay the SoFi XX/XX/XXXX subscription fee every XX/XX/XXXX days. This requirement was never presented clearly before my deposit. 

I contacted SoFi support. My initial message said : Hi. I need help immediately. The APY requirements on my account were not clearly disclosed when I opened it. I am filing a CFPB complaint about misleading presentation of the rate terms, and Im preparing to move all my funds out as soon as they clear unless this can somehow be resolved. 

When the agent asked what requirements I was referring to, I pasted their own APY condition text. I told them : I would never knowingly agree to a savings rate that requires paying a subscription fee. That is XXXX of the least consumer-friendly practices Ive ever seen. The requirement was buried and absolutely not presented in a clear or prominent way. 

The SoFi representative responded : Yes that is really the requirements of sofi to get the highest apy. 

Later, the supervisor said : These are the requirements for maintaining our highest available APY and they are not able to be changed. 

During the escalation process, I stated : It was not presented clearly on the pages I accessed to sign up for the account and requested a resolution. I asked them clearly for confirmation : I want confirmation that you will maintain my current APY for this evaluation period without requiring a SoFi XX/XX/XXXX subscription or any additional qualifying deposit. 

They refused and reiterated that the APY conditions could not be changed. 

At no point did SoFi offer to honor the APY they advertised at the time I deposited {$30000.00}, nor did they address the lack of clear disclosure during signup. Instead, they insisted the rate would only apply if I paid a subscription fee or met recurring deposit requirements. 

SoFis advertising ( Supercharge your savings and earn up to 4.30 % APY, Earn up to 4.30 % APY ) did not clearly disclose these paywalled conditions. The APY terms are only shown in fine print ( Earn up to 4.30 % APY on XXXX XXXX with a 0.70 % APY Boost Open a new SoFi Checking & Savings account and enroll in SoFi XX/XX/XXXX Rates variable, subject to change ), and these terms were not apparent during the signup flow. 

This creates a misleading and deceptive impression that simply opening the account provides access to the advertised APY, when in reality the rate is locked behind ongoing requirements, including paying a subscription fee.

I am withdrawing my funds from SoFi as a result and request that the CFPB review SoFis APY advertising and onboarding disclosures for compliance with federal truth-in-savings and unfair or deceptive practices standards. 

The conduct described above is not only misleading in a common-sense consumer understanding, it also aligns closely with what federal courts and regulators have repeatedly held to be deceptive under the Consumer Financial Protection Act ( XXXX ), the Truth in Savings Act ( XXXX ), and the long-standing FTC Act deception standard incorporated into CFPB enforcement. 

Under XXXX, XXXX XXXX. XXXX, a practice is deceptive if : A representation, omission, or practice is likely to mislead a consumer The consumers interpretation is reasonable under the circumstances The misleading information is material Every part of this standard fits SoFis APY advertising. 

XXXX. Likely to mislead hidden APY conditions courts reject Federal courts have consistently held that financial advertisements are deceptive when the headline promise is contradicted by buried or unclear conditions. 
Examples include : FTC v. XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXXXX/XX/XXXXXXXX ) XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX held a marketing claim deceptive because the " net impression '' of the offer misled consumerseven though technical conditions existed somewhere in the fine print. The court emphasized that what matters is the overall takeaway, not isolated disclaimers. 

CFPB XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX ) The court affirmed that financial offers are deceptive when key conditions are buried in secondary text, making consumers reasonably believe a benefit is available when it is not. 

CFPB XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX XXXX ) The deception finding turned on how a company structured its product so consumers were inevitably misled despite the existence of detailed terms elsewhere. 

SoFis use of Earn up to 4.30 % APY in bold, large fonts while burying the SoFi XXXX condition below the fold fits the exact pattern these cases condemn. 

XXXX. Reasonable consumer standard headline APY dominates The CFPB applies a reasonable consumer standard, not a sophisticated financial-professional standard. 

The big bold headline Supercharge your savings and earn up to 4.30 % APY defines the reasonable consumers understanding. 

High Yield Savings Account - Op Courts have repeatedly ruled that : Consumers read headlines, not footnotes Fine-print or Terms apply language does not cure a misleading headline See : FTC XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) underlying district court findings emphasized that consumers initial takeaway controls. 

In re XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( FTC ) disclaimers can not take back the promise made upfront. 

A reasonable consumer opening an account after reading earn up to 4.30 % APY would not assume they must pay a subscription fee everyXX/XX/XXXX days to maintain the rate. 

XXXX. Materiality APY is a core financial term APY is XXXX of the most material terms in retail banking. 

Under XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) and CFPB official commentary : Interest rate disclosures must be clear and conspicuous at the time of advertising. 

Material conditions affecting APY must be disclosed in close proximity to the APY statement Advertisements may not present a higher APY without immediately and clearly disclosing conditions required to obtain that APY SoFis presentation separates : Headline : Supercharge your savings and earn up to 4.30 % APY Hidden condition : Enroll in SoFi XX/XX/XXXXPay the SoFi XX/XX/XXXX subscription fee every XX/XX/XXXX days These conditions are nowhere near the headline, violating the proximity requirement recognized in XXXX XXXX XXXX ( b ). 

XXXX. The net impression test the nail in the coffin Both the FTC and CFPB rely on the net impression test, reaffirmed in : FTC XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) CFPB XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XX/XX/XXXXXXXX ) CFPB XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXXXXXX. XXXX ) Even if all SoFis terms existed somewhere on the page, what matters is the impression created in the consumers mind by the marketing. 

The net impression of the SoFi page is that opening the account allows consumers to earn the 4.30 percent APY. The fact that the rate is actually contingent on : paying a subscription fee or repeatedly hitting deposit rules or maintaining direct deposits changes the substance of the offer. 

Courts uniformly treat this mismatch as deceptive. 

XXXX. Paywalling an APY is itself unusual and material Courts have held that when a financial institution conditions a benefit on non-standard or surprising requirements, those requirements must be clearly and prominently disclosed. 

See : CFPB XXXX XXXX XXXX Bank, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) undisclosed non-standard conditions on financial benefits were ruled deceptive and unfair. 

A bank requiring a subscription fee to obtain an interest rate is non-standard in retail banking and requires unmistakable disclosure. 

XXXX. Misleading by omission buried conditions are treated as deception The law recognizes deceptive omission when a company fails to disclose material restrictions that would affect a consumers decision. 

This was reaffirmed in : FTC XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) CFPB XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXXXXXX ) SoFis failure to place its APY conditions clearly alongside the APY statement is an omission that directly impacts a consumers financial decision precisely the type regulators target. 

Conclusion ( for the CFPB reviewer ) SoFis advertising meets every element of a deceptive financial practice under the CFPA, violates the clear and conspicuous requirements of the Truth in Savings Act, and creates a misleading net impression under binding federal case law. Conditioning an advertised APY on a hidden subscription fee or recurring direct-deposit requirements is not standard industry practice and must be disclosed prominently at the point where the APY is advertised.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation