Consumer complaint received 2025-06-11 00:00:00
Product: Prepaid card — General-purpose prepaid card
Issue: Trouble using the card — Trouble getting information about the card
Company: CRED Technologies dba cred.ai
State: PA

Complaint narrative:
Dear CFPB Representative, I am submitting this complaint to formally document not just the deficient conduct of cred.ai in their handling of my account, but also their ongoing minimization of legitimate consumer concerns, operational opacity, and disregard for customer transparency, privacy, and lawful process. 

Following a prior complaint I submitted, I received an unsolicited, defensive, and highly inappropriate message from a cred.ai representative named XXXX XXXX. 

Instead of addressing the substance of my concerns, the tone of the message leaned condescending, dismissive, and even accusatory. This tone, combined with a pattern of selective fact-picking and corporate deflection, only serves to illustrate the very dysfunction I flagged in my original complaint. 

Let me address XXXX assertions point by point : First, XXXX attempts to downplay my concern over receiving no timely answer to a question about potential account inactivity closure, framing it as a hypothetical. Regardless of phrasing, the substance of the question was real and materially relevant to me as a new customerespecially given that many fintech institutions now engage in automated account closures with little to no notice. XXXX acknowledges that first-level support failed to answer my inquiry, but then has the audacity to suggest I should have bypassed normal support channels and contacted a second-level agent directly, or remembered a name from a past interaction. This expectation is neither practical nor disclosed anywhere in their app or support documentation. If first-level support is unqualified to answer basic questions about account status, that in itself is a red flag for operational compliance and user accessibility. 

Second, cred.ais recent decision to implement facial recognition requirements before allowing deposit actions was done without any notice, consent, or clear opt-in process. I discovered the feature only after being locked out of depositing funds unless I submitted a photo of my face. No warning, no onboarding, and certainly no explanation of how that biometric data would be stored or used. 

When I contacted the call center to inquire, agents had no idea what I was referring tosuggesting the feature was deployed without proper training or consumer education. Eventually, someone from email support acknowledged the issue, but only after I made repeated inquiries.

* * * This unannounced biometric gating of account access is both invasive and arguably unlawful under consumer protection and biometric data statutes. * * * Third, XXXX insinuates that I engaged in social engineering because, during a prior complaint, I referenced a publicly available XXXX review that closely mirrored my experience. I was transparent in my communication and would have gladly clarified the source if asked. 

* * * The fact that cred.ai sees consumer citation of public criticism as a potential security threat speaks volumes about their internal cultureand their apparent discomfort with accountability. * * * Most disturbingly, XXXX tries to redirect attention to a single sentence from a prior phone call in which I expressed frustration about the repeated support failures. I regret if my tone was blunt, but to frame my criticism of a broken offshore support systemafter hours of escalationsas demeaning while ignoring the institutional dysfunction that provoked it is a classic example of corporate gaslighting. This is the same playbook used by firms that try to flip the blame onto customers for reacting to mismanagement, rather than fixing the root problem. I stand by my criticism of how support was handled. My words may have been sharp, but they were a reaction to structural apathy, not personal disrespect. 

The bigger picture is this : cred.ai presents itself as a no fee, no interest financial innovation. In reality, it operates like a vaporware fintech, built more for attracting investors than for serving customers. The XXXX XXXX  from signaling financial empowermentis little more than cardboard horn cosplay slapped onto a structurally unsound operation. Their product roadmap seems to be driven by optics, not compliance. They deploy features ( like biometric gates ) without notice. They outsource first-line support to poorly trained overseas agents. They gaslight customers when they express legitimate concern. And when those customers file complaints, the company responds not with introspection, but with defensiveness and veiled threats of account closure. 

This is not a one-off issue. It is a systemic example of the increasing trend among venture-backed fintechs to substitute flash for substance. As a customer, I was misled, poorly supported, and surveilled without notice. As a complainant, I was dismissed, condescended to, and subtly threatened with closure. And as a citizen, I am now asking for regulators to step inbecause no matter how slick the app interface, this kind of business model is an erosion of financial integrity. 

* * * Most critically, cred.ais sudden and undocumented implementation of facial recognition requirements before granting access to deposit functions isat minimuman Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Act or Practice ( UDAAP ) violation under the Dodd-Frank Act. The failure to notify users of this policy change, obtain affirmative consent, or offer alternatives constitutes an unfair and deceptive limitation on access to ones own funds. It effectively blocks lawful account usage behind a biometric wall that users never agreed to, in conflict with basic principles of transparency, informed consent, and equal access. * * * This is a textbook example of why UDAAP enforcement exists in the fintech space. It is not enough for a company to claim innovation while quietly shifting risk and friction onto the consumer. When a financial institution introduces new surveillance features without user consent, fails to train its agents on the change, and locks customers out of functionality as a result, that is not a customer service oversightit is a regulatory concern. 

I respectfully urge the CFPB to investigate : Whether cred.ai is deploying biometric features in accordance with federal and state notice, consent, and privacy laws ; Whether its outsourced support model meets regulatory requirements for transparency and responsiveness ; Whether its complaint handling procedures are in compliance with fair lending, UDAAP standards, and consumer communication regulations ; And whether the companys branding and promotional claims constitute deceptive advertising under federal consumer protection laws. 

Sincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation