Consumer complaint received 2025-06-26 00:00:00
Product: Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service — Mobile or digital wallet
Issue: Unexpected or other fees — 
Company: Paypal Holdings, Inc
State: MN

Complaint narrative:
I have repeatedly paid for " instant transfer '' services through XXXX  and XXXX, under the understanding, based on the marketing of both XXXX  and XXXX, that any selectable account participated in the XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX program and would make funds available promptly. XXXX 's program dictates that financial institutions are required to make funds available within a maximum of 30 minutes, a timeframe updated to 60 seconds after XX/XX/XXXX. My XXXX XXXX XXXX card was indicated as qualifying for this program. On XX/XX/XXXX, I paid XXXX  for an " instant transfer '' to my XXXX account. The funds appeared as available within the 30-minute period. However, sometime within 24 hours after this initial availability, the financial institution reversed the availability of these funds and froze my account without any prior notice of the reversal or the account freeze. This incident led to financial harm due to failed direct debit transactions that I had planned based on the marketing of XXXX and XXXX  regarding fund availability. This exact process was repeated on XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX, each time involving an instant transfer from XXXX  for which I paid a fee, under the same understanding of immediate fund availability. Similar issues arose with transactions initiated through XXXX : On XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX, I paid fees to XXXX for expedited processing, expecting funds to be available within 30 minutes. In both instances, the financial institution held the funds and froze the account, causing disruption. It was not until an XXXX transaction on XX/XX/XXXX, that I realized the correlation between these transfers, the incurred fees, and the resulting failed withdrawals. I spent over 90 minutes on the phone with the financial institution, seeking an explanation for the account freeze and the unavailability of funds. I was simply advised to wait 24 hours for the account to reset, which it did, but no resolution or compensation was offered for the fees or costs associated with the delayed transfers or the account freezes. The situation escalated on XX/XX/XXXX. I again paid XXXX for an XXXX XXXX XXXX transfer. The financial institution initially made the funds available within 30 minutes. Subsequently, it froze not only the funds from this XXXX XXXX transfer but all funds in the account, including a recent payroll deposit. Another call to the financial institution, lasting over 90 minutes, revealed their explanation : the XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX transfer was " still processing, '' leading to a negative overnight balance, which triggered the account freeze. I was again instructed to wait for overnight processing. This freeze caused multiple direct debits, which the payroll deposit should have covered, to fail. This resulted in both failed withdrawal fees and late fees, directly attributable to the financial institution freezing a payroll check. Following this, I ensured my linked self-funded overdraft account had sufficient funds to cover any potential issues. However, on XX/XX/XXXX, an XXXX funds transfer was made available, and I was able to withdraw and transfer funds throughout the day. Then, on XX/XX/XXXX, the financial institution reversed the XXXX funds, froze the account, and failed to fund any overdrafts from the backup account, resulting in a negative balance and another account freeze until XX/XX/XXXX. Throughout these incidents, the financial institution consistently refers to these XXXX XXXX XXXX  Push transactions as " ETF pull transactions, '' failing to acknowledge their nature as XXXX XXXX XXXX Push transactions. The repeated freezing of accounts, reversal of available funds, and the direct financial harm from failed transactions and associated fees demonstrate a severe breakdown in service and a clear contradiction with the advertised and expected behavior of XXXX XXXX transfers. It is unclear whether XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, or the receiving financial institution is ultimately responsible for this recurring issue, as each entity has, directly or indirectly, pointed to the others.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation