Consumer complaint received 2026-04-27 00:00:00
Product: Payday loan, title loan, personal loan, or advance loan — Earned wage access
Issue: Confusing or missing disclosures — 
Company: Activehours
State: MD

Complaint narrative:
This complaint is filed as a supplement to complaint number XXXX, filed XX/XX/year>, and should be reviewed in conjunction with that record. This filing addresses the bad faith resolution conduct that occurred between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/year>, in the direct aftermath of the original complaint and culminating in EarnIn 's unilateral federal filing characterizing this matter as finally resolved. The Invitation On XX/XX/year> at XXXX PM EarnIn 's XXXX of Customer Care personally and explicitly invited me to submit questions before any further steps were taken. That invitation was not incidental. It was extended by the most senior customer care executive at the company, directed personally to me, and created a reasonable and documented expectation that my questions would inform whatever resolution process followed. I took that invitation at its word. The Questions At XXXX PM XXXX minutes after her invitation I submitted my first question. I asked the VP to clarify her understanding of the current state of this matter before any resolution was finalized. That request was not adversarial. It was a direct and deliberate attempt to ensure that whatever EarnIn put on paper reflected the actual and complete scope of what I had experienced. It was not answered. The following morning at XXXX AM I submitted a second question asking directly and specifically whether EarnIn was working on a resolution that could be processed before the end of the weekend. That question had one purpose to allow me to make informed decisions about next steps based on the company 's actual position. It was not answered. That same evening at XXXX PM exactly XXXX hours after the XXXX 's invitation I submitted a final communication. I noted explicitly that neither question had been acknowledged. I stated that the silence was preventing me from making informed decisions. I asked for nothing beyond confirmation of where things stood. It was not answered. The XXXX XXXX The following day, XX/XX/year> at XXXX PM, EarnIn filed a formal response with this federal body characterizing this matter as finally resolved with a {$1000.00} monetary credit. That filing was submitted while all three of my questions sat unanswered. It was not informed by a single piece of information I would have provided had the XXXX responded. It references a figure discussed at an earlier point in this matter before the full scope of documented harm was established, before the enrollment misrepresentation was formally raised on XX/XX/XXXX, and before the correspondence that followed the original filing produced additional admissions and acknowledgments that now form a material part of this record. The XXXX of Customer Care invited dialogue. The dialogue was never permitted to occur. EarnIn then took a figure from an earlier and incomplete point in this matter, filed it with a federal regulator without discussion, and characterized it as final resolution. Had the XXXX responded genuinely to any of the XXXX communications submitted within her own invitation window, the company would have had a complete and accurate account of where this matter stood at the time of filing. That information would have informed a resolution offer grounded in the actual scope of harm. Instead a predetermined conclusion was filed with a federal regulator while the dialogue that would have prevented it was being deliberately withheld. It should also be noted that a formal complaint regarding a material misrepresentation at enrollment was submitted directly through EarnIn 's official complaint channels on XX/XX/year> at XXXX PM approximately XXXX hours before their federal filing. Had the XXXX of Customer Care continued the direct correspondence she personally initiated on XX/XX/XXXX, the existence of that complaint would have surfaced naturally through dialogue before any federal response was filed. She did not continue that correspondence. The complaint was neither acknowledged nor incorporated into EarnIn 's federal response submitted the following day. Executive Visibility and Silence The company 's General Counsel and Chief Compliance XXXX were copied on the correspondence containing each of these unanswered questions. These are the individuals whose receipt and personal review of this matter is confirmed in writing by EarnIn 's own representative. They had the authority to respond. They had the information to respond. They had the professional obligation to respond. They chose silence throughout the entire XXXX hour invitation window and through the filing that followed it. The decision to file a resolution with this federal body while that correspondence sat unacknowledged was made within their authority and under their oversight. That sequence invitation extended, questions submitted, senior executives copied, silence maintained, federal filing made is preserved in its entirety and is currently under legal review. The Public Contradiction and the Prior Warnings Beginning XX/XX/year>, I delivered explicit written warnings to EarnIn 's executive and legal leadership that public documentation of this matter was forthcoming. On XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX PM I stated explicitly that I was preparing a complete timestamped account of this matter based entirely on EarnIn 's own written record, to be shared in the form of a series of video essays directed at EarnIn 's target audience. On XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX PM I stated that regulatory filings were prepared and public service announcements were ready to post, held only by my continued good faith. On XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX PM I stated that absent executive engagement every document, admission, timestamp, and acknowledgment in this record would find its audience. Those warnings were delivered XXXX to XXXX days before EarnIn filed their federal resolution. A public social media post containing the exact chat log at the center of this matter was published on approximately XX/XX/year> XXXX days before that filing on a thread that had accumulated over XXXX views by the time EarnIn filed. Between XXXX and XXXX hours after filing their federal resolution characterizing this matter as closed, EarnIn 's verified public account engaged with that XXXX day old post as though encountering this situation for the first time. They expressed that the situation was something they take seriously and stated they would make it right immediately. Those XXXX positions matter finally resolved and we will make it right immediately were expressed by the same company within the same afternoon. XXXX was filed with a federal regulator. The other was performed publicly for thousands of viewers. The post they responded to had been live for XXXX days. The warnings that preceded it had been delivered in writing XXXX to XXXX days before their filing. Their engagement with that post as new information whether the product of genuine ignorance or deliberate performance directly contradicts EarnIn 's characterization of their internal process as thorough and their resolution as final. The Resolution Offer Itself The {$1000.00} figure EarnIn filed does not reflect any review of actual damages. It was not the product of any discussion. It was not informed by a single answer to a single question submitted within the XXXX 's own invitation window. It was calculated in a vacuum and filed unilaterally with a federal regulator while the consumer it purports to compensate was actively waiting for a response to questions that would have informed that very calculation. Furthermore EarnIn can not claim remedial credit for the return of the original paycheck amount. Their own representatives stated explicitly and repeatedly across multiple interactions that the return of those funds was an automatic process executed by their partner banking institution entirely outside EarnIn 's control. The return does not address a single consequence of the period of documented financial harm that followed the misrouting on XX/XX/year>. Please note : The points raised in this filing are not simply my interpretation of the events of XX/XX/year>. They are points that emerged directly through EarnIn 's own conflict resolution process acknowledged, confirmed, and in several instances formally admitted by EarnIn 's own representatives, supervisors, and executive leadership across an entirely written correspondence record spanning XXXX days. They are brought to the attention of this federal body because internal dialogue despite being initiated, documented, and pursued in good faith at every stage was effectively abandoned on multiple occasions by EarnIn across that same record. EarnIn will now demonstrate through their response to this federal body either a contrasting or a comparable approach to the pattern documented here, with whatever urgency they deem this matter deserves.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation