Consumer complaint received 2026-03-11 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Managing an account — Funds not handled or disbursed as instructed
Company: SOFI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
State: LA

Complaint narrative:
I am submitting this new complaint against SoFi Bank. They are not taking my complaint seriously and provide ambiguous replies. They acknowledge issuing a stop payment but ignore the changing merchant identity to bypass. They note credits were issued from same merchants for smallest amounts, not justifying how all others are valid though the reversal of smaller amounts from same merchants stands. SoFis response does not resolve the issues raised in my complaint and does not address the procedural failures that led to continued unauthorized withdrawals, the creation of a substantial overdraft, and the closure of my accounts during an active CFPB investigation. The banks letter repeats prior conclusions without addressing the underlying facts, the regulatory obligations at issue, or the deficiencies in its investigation. 1. SoFi did not address the continued unauthorized withdrawals after I provided timely notice My original complaint explained that : I reported unauthorized electronic transfers before many transactions posted. I requested that SoFi restrict activity to my physical card only. I warned that additional withdrawals were imminent due to the merchants use of rotating billing identifiers. XXXXoFis response does not explain : Why no preventative measures were implemented after notice. Why SoFi relied on a stop payment mechanism that is ineffective against rotating merchant descriptors. Why SoFi allowed the same merchant ecosystem to continue debiting the account after disputes were filed. Regulation E requires a financial institution to prevent further unauthorized transfers once the consumer provides notice. SoFis response does not address this obligation. 2. SoFi does not address the overdraft created by its own handling of the provisional credit SoFi issued a {$6000.00} provisional credit on XX/XX/XXXX. Instead of securing the account, SoFi allowed the same merchants to withdraw those provisional funds using newly altered identifiers. When SoFi later revoked the provisional credit, the account reflected an overdraft of approximately {$6000.00}. This overdraft : Was not caused by new spending, Was not caused by consumer action, And arose solely from SoFis failure to prevent continued debits during an active dispute. SoFis letter does not address this sequence of events or explain how the resulting overdraft could be attributed to me. 3. SoFi claims the transactions were authorized but provides no evidence SoFi states that its decisions were based on an analysis confirming the transactions were authorized. However, the bank does not provide : Any authentication data, Any merchant provided evidence, Any explanation of how authorization was determined, Or any details about the coordination it claims occurred with merchants and financial institutions. A bare assertion of authorization does not satisfy the requirement for a reasonable investigation under Regulation XXXX. 4. The merchant information is ambiguous and inconsistent with a legitimate business One of the merchants cited in SoFis denial, XXXX XXXX, lists an address associated with a virtual mailbox service, not a physical business location. This is consistent with high risk digital merchants and fraud linked operations that obscure their identity. This raises several concerns : A merchant using a virtual mailbox can not be reliably verified. SoFi does not explain how it confirmed authorization when the merchants identity is ambiguous. SoFi does not explain how it conducted coordination with a merchant that does not appear to operate from a legitimate physical location. A reasonable investigation requires verification of the merchants identity. SoFis response does not address this issue. 5. SoFi does not address the structural issue of rotating merchant identifiers My complaint explained that the merchants used constantly changing billing descriptors, which allowed them to bypass SoFis stop payment measures. This pattern was repeatedly communicated to SoFi. SoFis response does not acknowledge : The existence of rotating identifiers, The limitations of its stop payment system, Or the banks responsibility to implement alternative protections once notified. This omission is significant because the rotating identifiers were the mechanism that allowed continued unauthorized withdrawals. 6. SoFis explanation for closing my account is unsupported and ignores the timing SoFi closed my accounts on XX/XX/XXXX, while my CFPB complaint was still active. The bank cites a generic clause from its Deposit Account Agreement but does not : Identify which specific provision I allegedly violated, Explain how the supposed violation occurred, Address the fact that the overdraft was created by disputed transactions, Or explain why the account was closed during an active regulatory review. Closing the account under these circumstances compounded the harm and deprived me of access to banking services while the dispute remained unresolved. 7. SoFis response contains factual inconsistencies and omissions Examples include : SoFi claims denial documents were sent on XX/XX/XXXX, which is nearly a year after the events in question and appears to be a clerical error. SoFi references a stop payment request on XX/XX/XXXX but does not address my earlier warnings or the ineffectiveness of stop payment against rotating identifiers. SoFi does not address the lack of transparency regarding its alleged coordination with merchants. These inconsistencies further call into question the completeness of the banks investigation. Conclusion SoFis response does not resolve my complaint because it : Fails to address the continued unauthorized withdrawals after notice, Does not explain the overdraft created by its own handling of the provisional credit, Provides no evidence supporting its claim that the transactions were authorized, Does not address the questionable legitimacy of the merchants involved, Ignores the structural issue of rotating billing identifiers, And does not justify closing my account during an active CFPB investigation. I respectfully request continued CFPB review to determine whether SoFi complied with Regulation E and whether its handling of my disputes, provisional credit, and account closure deprived me of the protections afforded to consumers reporting unauthorized electronic transfers. Signed, XXXX XXXX XXXX

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation