Consumer complaint received 2025-08-08 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Closing an account — Company closed your account
Company: SOFI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
State: MA

Complaint narrative:
FOLLOW-UP COMPLAINT - ADDITIONAL UAAB VIOLATIONS UNFAIR, ABUSIVE AND DECEPTIVE ACTS AND PRACTICES ( UDAAP ) TO : Consumer Financial Protection Bureau FROM : XXXX XXXX DATE : XXXX RE : Additional UDAAP Violations- Case # XXXX - SoFi Bank XXXX XXXX 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF NEW VIOLATIONS SoFi 's XX/XX/year> response to my CFPB complaint has revealed additional unfair, deceptive, and abusive practices that demand immediate regulatory intervention. Their attempt to justify their actions has actually exposed more serious violations of consumer protection laws. 

VIOLATION # 1 : CREATION OF IMPOSSIBLE FINANCIAL SITUATION ( ABUSIVE PRACTICE ) THE ABUSIVE CONDUCT : SoFi FORCED me to write " For SoFi Mobile Deposit Only '' on legitimate U.S. Postal Service money orders as a REQUIREMENT for mobile deposit. After I complied with their mandatory instructions, they : 1. REJECTED the deposits they required me to prepare 2. CLOSED my account for attempting the deposits they instructed me to make 3. Left me with {$600.00} in money orders that can only be deposited at SoFi 4. Made it impossible to use these money orders anywhere else WHY THIS IS ABUSIVE UNDER CFPB STANDARDS : Takes unreasonable advantage of my lack of understanding of their internal processes Materially interferes with my ability to use legitimate financial instruments Creates harm that I could not reasonably avoid Exploits my reasonable reliance on their deposit requirements VIOLATION # 2 : DECEPTIVE JUSTIFICATION AND GASLIGHTING SOFI 'S MISLEADING RESPONSE : In their XX/XX/XXXX letter, SoFi attempts to minimize the damage by stating : " Any previous attempts to deposit the money orders with SoFi were not reported to any external verification system ( i.e. XXXX, etc. ). '' WHY THIS IS DECEPTIVE AND IRRELEVANT : 1. XXXX reporting is NOT the issue- the issue is that I have {$600.00} in legitimate money orders that are now UNUSABLE 2. They created the problem by requiring the restrictive endorsement 3. Their " reassurance '' about XXXX is meaningless when I can't deposit the money orders anywhere 4. This is classic gaslighting - making me seem unreasonable for being concerned about money orders THEY made unusable VIOLATION # 3 : UNFAIR PRACTICE - CREATING STRANDED ASSETS THE UNFAIR PRACTICE : Banks can not require customers to make instruments unusable elsewhere and then refuse to honor them Legal Standard Violated : Substantial consumer injury : {$600.00} in stranded money orders Not outweighed by benefits : No legitimate fraud prevention purpose Not reasonably avoidable : I had no choice but to follow their endorsement requirements THE FINANCIAL HARM : {$600.00} in legitimate money orders rendered unusable Can not be deposited anywhere else due to SoFi-specific endorsement Can not be altered without committing actual fraud Money orders represent real cash paid to USPS VIOLATION # 4 : DECEPTIVE PRACTICE - FALSE IMPLICATION OF WRONGDOING THE DECEPTION : SoFi 's response attempts to justify account closure by mentioning the money orders, implying they were problematic, while simultaneously admitting : The money orders were legitimate USPS instruments They were not reported to XXXX  ( meaning no fraud detected ) The endorsement was required by SoFi 's own procedures THE FALSE IMPLICATION : By mentioning the money orders in their justification while knowing they were legitimate, SoFi is creating a false narrative that these instruments were somehow suspicious or problematic.

VIOLATION # 5 : SYSTEMIC UNFAIRNESS - PROCEDURAL TRAP THE SYSTEMATIC PROBLEM : SoFi has created a procedural trap where customers : 1. Are required to make restrictive endorsements 2. Have deposits rejected for arbitrary reasons 3. Are left with unusable financial instruments 4. Have no recourse or remedy PATTERN OF UNFAIR CONDUCT : This reveals SoFi 's systematic unfairness : Bait customers into making restrictive endorsements Reject deposits for undisclosed reasons Leave customers with stranded financial instruments Deny responsibility for the harm caused THE BROADER CONSUMER PROTECTION ISSUE REGULATORY IMPLICATIONS : If banks can : Force restrictive endorsements on legitimate instruments Reject those same instruments arbitrarily Leave consumers with unusable assets Claim no responsibility for the resulting harm Then NO CONSUMER IS SAFE from having their legitimate financial instruments weaponized against them.

IMMEDIATE RELIEF REQUIRED EMERGENCY CONSUMER PROTECTION NEEDED : 1. IMMEDIATE ORDER requiring SoFi to accept the properly endorsed money orders 2. PROHIBITION on requiring restrictive endorsements without guaranteeing acceptance 3. COMPENSATION for the financial harm and stranded assets created 4. SYSTEMIC REFORMS to prevent this trap from affecting other consumers REGULATORY ACTION DEMANDED : 1. INVESTIGATE SoFi 's endorsement requirements and rejection practices 2. IMPOSE PENALTIES for creating stranded consumer assets 3. REQUIRE industry-wide standards for restrictive endorsement practices 4. MANDATE consumer protections against procedural traps CONCLUSION : ESCALATING UNFAIRNESS SoFi 's response has made their violations WORSE, not better. They have : Confirmed they required the restrictive endorsements Admitted the money orders were legitimate ( no XXXX reporting ) Refused to take responsibility for the stranded assets they created Demonstrated a pattern of systematic unfairness This is exactly the type of unfair, deceptive, and abusive conduct that the CFPB exists to prevent.

The {$600.00} in stranded money orders represents concrete financial harm that SoFi created through their own requirements and then abandoned when it became inconvenient for them.

IMMEDIATE CFPB INTERVENTION IS REQUIRED to prevent SoFi from continuing these abusive practices against other consumers.

Respectfully demanding emergency consumer protection, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation