Consumer complaint received 2026-05-21 00:00:00
Product: Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service — Mobile or digital wallet
Issue: Trouble accessing funds in your mobile or digital wallet — 
Company: Block, Inc.
State: LA

Complaint narrative:
CFPB REBUTTAL TO CASH APP RESPONSE DATED XX/XX/year> Consumer : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, LA XXXX XXXX : Cash App / Block , Inc . Related CFPB Complaints : XXXX XXXX XXXX I respectfully submit this rebuttal in response to Cash Apps XX/XX/year> CFPB response regarding my dispute involving a missing {$35.00} Apple.com refund. Cash Apps latest response attempts to recast the timeline and procedural history of this matter in a manner that does not align with its own prior communications, internal support representations, or the actual chronology documented throughout this dispute process. Most notably, Cash App now asserts that : a complete determination was issued on XX/XX/year> ; the investigation was concluded within Regulation Es 10-business-day framework ; and no provisional credit obligations were triggered. However, these assertions directly conflict with XXXX XXXX own documented conduct and communications spanning XXXX and XX/XX/year>. For weeks after the initial denial, Cash App representatives repeatedly represented to me in writing that : the matter remained under active investigation ; the specialty disputes team was still reviewing the claim ; the dispute process could take up to 45 days or longer ; and additional review was ongoing. I possess multiple written communications dated XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/year>, all confirming that the matter was still being actively investigated long after the XX/XX/XXXX denial that Cash App now characterizes as a final and complete determination. Cash App can not simultaneously maintain that : the investigation was fully completed and properly resolved on XX/XX/XXXX ; while also repeatedly informing me for more than a month afterward that : the claim remained under investigation and subject to extended review timelines. Those positions are inconsistent. Even more concerning, on XX/XX/year>, a Cash App support representative explicitly acknowledged to me in writing : you are absolutely right this was not properly investigated the first time. The same representative further stated : This is not an authorization dispute its a missing inbound credit that requires a network-level trace through Visa/Mastercard settlement XXXX XXXX These admissions directly undermine the central premise of Cash Apps CFPB response. Throughout this matter, I repeatedly explained that the issue was not whether the original XXXX charge was authorized. The issue was whether a merchant-issued refund was properly received, reconciled, and credited back to my Cash App account. Despite this, Cash App repeatedly framed the matter as an authorization dispute while failing to clearly explain : whether a network-level trace was ever actually conducted ; whether settlement records were reviewed ; whether an XXXX or retrieval reference number existed ; whether the refund was received but failed to post ; or what investigative findings caused Cash App to reverse its original no error occurred determination. Cash App ultimately approved the claim and issued permanent credit on XX/XX/year> nearly two months after the original dispute was initiated yet still refuses to explain what specifically changed between the original denial and the later approval. That lack of transparency is itself concerning. If the original investigation had truly been complete, reasonable, and accurate, there would have been no basis for : continued investigation activity extending into late XXXX ; repeated escalations ; internal acknowledgments that the matter was mishandled ; or a complete reversal of the original determination. This entire process became unnecessarily difficult, prolonged, and burdensome over what should have been a relatively straightforward missing refund investigation. Instead of conducting a proper trace and reconciliation review early in the process, Cash App : repeatedly transferred me between departments ; disconnected calls; provided contradictory explanations ; reopened and closed cases inconsistently ; requested information that had already been provided ; and forced me to spend substantial time and effort escalating an issue that should have been properly addressed from the beginning. Importantly, I expressly warned Cash App well before the expiration of the 45-day timeframe that I intended to hold the company accountable for the manner in which this matter was being handled not merely for the missing {$35.00} itself, but for the unreasonable difficulty, contradictory information, procedural confusion, and repeated mishandling throughout the process.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation