[HN Gopher] Chime has been suddenly closing accounts, not return... ___________________________________________________________________ Chime has been suddenly closing accounts, not returning customers' money Author : danso Score : 133 points Date : 2021-07-06 19:54 UTC (3 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.propublica.org) (TXT) w3m dump (www.propublica.org) | sp332 wrote: | Could you change the title to include "Chime" as the name of the | company? | ewmiller wrote: | That's why I don't trust any of these new trendy banking apps; | better to stick with established institutions IMO. Not that | they're great either but at least you won't be in a situation | like this, or at the very least they'll have better customer | support. | gricardo99 wrote: | credit unions are great. Typically very customer friendly (i.e. | no stupid monthly fees), many have been around a long time, and | have rolled-out decent online banking options and mobile apps. | cowmoo728 wrote: | It's why I switched everything to a combination of [boring | established brokerage] and a credit union that's been around | for almost 100 years. Their apps are mediocre and some of the | more complicated account changes require a mix of faxed forms | and phone support that's only available during normal business | hours. But they're unlikely to mess things up very much and | they're hopefully less likely to sell or leak all of my | financial and personal information. And if something goes wrong | my brokerage has in-person customer support branches around the | country. | kapp_in_life wrote: | I'm in the same boat, with half my checking in the brokerage | and half in the credit union. Some recent changes to the | credit union(merging/renaming/ui changes) have been | frustrating me and I've thought about rolling everything to | the brokerage's offering, but the redundancy is nice for a | situation like described here. Knock on wood though since it | hasn't happened yet. | waltwalther wrote: | If you had been aware of this before opening your Chime account | would you still have done so? I would not. Losing my money, and | then having it tied up in a frustrating and incompetent process | is just not worth the risk. I will be closing my Chime account | immediately. This needs more attention. | axaxs wrote: | I don't see how anyone can take Chime seriously. | | I have a habit of checking out most new free banking apps, | looking for the best deals, UI, security, etc. | | Chime immediately started sending my phone notifications with | tons of emojis in them. It felt completely childish and I | couldn't believe this was a legitimate company that people would | put tons of money into. | sp332 wrote: | I used a (now-defunct) app called Penny and it did this. The | app was very useful for budgeting so I just had to look past | the emojis. | mkmk wrote: | Isn't that just a generational thing? Presumably this is an | intentional communication choice designed to appeal to younger | users. So, even though it doesn't match your own preferred | communication style, it could actually be seen as a sign of | competence in knowing one's target market and how to best reach | them. | hndirect wrote: | It's the "How Do You Do Fellow Kids?" meme come to life. | ericlewis wrote: | that was indeed our theory too | ericlewis wrote: | people weirdly enough really enjoy those, but marketing has | gotten out of hand lately. | TillE wrote: | Do they? I mean, even if that's how someone talks to their | friends, from some faceless company's mass communication it's | at best inauthentic and try-hard. | ericlewis wrote: | when they were smaller it was more endearing, I agree now | that it is too much. | | edit: and disingenuous at best | willcipriano wrote: | I am really looking for a Jeeves[0] like demeanor when you | have thousands of my dollars. "Yes sir, right away sir." | not "Sure bro ;) *eggplant emoji*" | | [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeeves_and_Wooster | bazzargh wrote: | Except Jeeves would add "...but is sir sure that | investing such a large sum in Cousin Eddie's racehorse is | wise? You will recall his "sure thing" at the parish | tombola." | | And then later when you lose your shirt, you'd find he'd | not actually bet on the horse you asked for, because he'd | spoken to Captain Aykroyd's man who'd explained that the | fix was in, Greased Lightning had had a plate of porridge | to slow him down for breakfast; he'd instead put it all | on Dreadnought at 8 to 1, which had won by a length. | | You know come to think of it that's exactly who I want | managing my finances. | __david__ wrote: | That seems like an incredibly petty thing to be bothered by. I | really hate the idea that companies have to act in some fake | capital P Professional way for people to take them seriously. I | really don't care if my bank (or whatever) wants to exude | personality. It just means they don't have some boring, | gatekeeping PR flack in charge... | tpae wrote: | This is why crypto is the future | withinboredom wrote: | Crypto isn't as vulnerable to this, but it's just as | vulnerable. POS Apps could blacklist your address and not | accept payments from you just as easily and trace funds that | leave that wallet and blacklist them; all in the name of fraud | prevention. | TravisHusky wrote: | Yeah, it will be great when the average person loses their | private key(s) and then has no recourse to get their money | back. | | Let's say they have a 3rd party managing their keys so they | don't lose them, well congratulations you just reinvented | banking but in a way that inherently destroys the environment. | judge2020 wrote: | > Chime is a financial technology company, not a bank. Banking | services provided by The Bancorp Bank or Stride Bank, N.A.; | Members FDIC | | Regardless of this, those bank accounts are still FDIC insured, | and thus they're subject to the same regulations, right? When I | closed my Bank of America account they were insistent that any | transactions or deposits after it was closed would be mailed to | me in the form of a bill or a check, respectively. Is that not a | requirement for all FDIC insured accounts? | otterley wrote: | IAAL but this is not legal advice. | | It sounds like it depends. If the bank has good reason to | believe the funds are fraudulently sourced, then it may | lawfully be entitled to hold them until it can be shown (either | to their satisfaction, or to the satisfaction of a court) that | the funds are legitimate. | elliekelly wrote: | It also depends on whether and how the funds actually made it | to the FDIC insured institution. If Chime didn't deposit the | funds or if the funds weren't deposited in a segregated | custody account FBO Chime customers (as opposed to co-mingled | with Chime's corporate cash) then it's a lot less of a | guarantee because they could be tied up with potential | creditor claims to Chime's cash. | | That being said, the article makes me think this is the | custody bank's AML process at work and Chime wasn't prepared | for the customer service aspect of on-boarding a bunch of | "high risk" clients and then almost immediately having those | accounts closed due to the risk assessment. | ericlewis wrote: | the user accounts are def segregated from corp | | - ex-chimer | ericlewis wrote: | it is almost certainly Bancorp that requested this -- not | Chime itself. | sp332 wrote: | Does that mean that each customer has an account at one of | those banks? Maybe they could call them up directly and get | their money back. | thoughtpalette wrote: | I had an fraudulent account opened in Chime with my name/info | (about a year ago). I contacted support when I received some | weird marketing email for this service I never signed up for. I | tried to talk to their support as it was obviously fraudulent and | they wanted me to send in License/Docs proving my identity. | Didn't trust them with a photo copy of my license since they were | obviously terrible and just froze my credit. | | Got the email today that the account was finally closed. Stay as | far away from this company as you can. | otterley wrote: | This is a good reminder that the best way to get your money back | from an institution that is unfairly keeping it from you is | either to file suit (in CA, you can sue for up to $10,000 in | small-claims court), or hire an attorney. Self-help and | complaining online rarely works. Phone calls work even less. | astrange wrote: | Hiring an attorney is a good way to not have any money since | you used it to pay the attorney. (And you have to find one - | for some reason there's a phrase "my lawyer" but what kind of | person "has a lawyer" and why would that lawyer know how to do | everything?) | | Just file a CFPB complaint: https://www.consumerfinance.gov | otterley wrote: | > Just file a CFPB complaint: https://www.consumerfinance.gov | | "Just <do x>" is considered facile and sometimes rude, if not | harmful; it implies that things are easier and/or more | effective than they actually are. (The CFPB does not | represent you personally, and is not obligated to act on your | behalf, unlike an attorney.) | | > Hiring an attorney is a good way to not have any money | since you used it to pay the attorney | | It depends on how much money is on the line. Many small- | claims courts don't even let you have an attorney, and the | filing fees are small and the effort to file is minimal. On | the other hand, if there's a lot of money at stake, having an | attorney can pay off. | | And there's always somewhere in between: having an attorney | send a demand letter can sometimes yield good results, | without necessarily breaking the bank. Getting an attorney | involved doesn't necessarily imply that you're going all the | way to trial and judgment. | | > And you have to find one | | You also sometimes have to find a plumber when a pipe springs | a leak... Life isn't perfect, and that's why these people | exist. | gruez wrote: | If all your money is parked in one bank account, you're | probably too busy figuring out how to buy groceries or pay | bills, and don't time for a daytrip to an attorney's office or | courthouse. | techsupporter wrote: | > The sudden account closures have put financially vulnerable | customers under stress. | | Of course they have. It's no accident that accounts like these | are _heavily_ marketed to people with terms like "faster access | to YOUR money" and "virtually no fees" and "manage YOUR MONEY | from anywhere, down to the penny!" These companies are targeting | people for whom every single dollar is of vital importance. | | To then yank the accounts right as a large deposit from a | government agency lands is malfeasance, or at least immoral. | | The vast majority of us who post on this site have plenty of | money, or at least credit, in reserve so that even losing $10,000 | worth of deposit isn't crippling. It's bad, for sure, but it's | not "I'm homeless starting tomorrow" bad. We are not the target | market for apps-that-should-be-proper-banks like Chime. | | > She was directed to a passage in the company's account | agreement that states, "Chime and/or Bank may suspend, freeze, or | close your Account for any reason with or without notice" | | Yup, sounds about right. And of course there's a binding | arbitration agreement, requiring all arbitration actions to be on | an individual basis. | | So customers can be turned away with no reason, no recourse, no | private right of action against the offending company, and no | ability to group together to push back on a larger foe. | | This is, no pardon requested, fucking bullshit. I loathe that | we've gotten so deep into contracts of adhesion and abstractions | between supplying company and supplier and third-party | relationships and "oh it's someone else's problem" and automated | customer handling. | syshum wrote: | People like this should be using credit unions, not banks. | | Credit Unions where created to service customers that would not | profitable for a normal bank, many decades ago I was one of | those customers... Still today, even though my financial | situation is far better, refuse to put any of my money in bank | after the treatment I received from them. I have been with my | current credit union for 20+ years, I love them, every loan I | have gotten from auto to mortgage in the last 15 years is also | run through a credit union... | | Credit Unions is where it is at, people need to be educated to | use them | mindslight wrote: | While there seems to be a correlation where credit unions | have better service, it's not a hard rule. Small local banks | can also be friendly and responsive. | | The key is to avoid large companies where your call will be | "placed in a bucket of stomach fluid", and even worse, when | you visit the branch the person trying to help you will be at | the mercy of the same exact customer service line. | | I'm glad you found a smaller business to trust. | pm90 wrote: | Credit Unions don't take out splashy ads all over the place | though (maybe they should). | | I agree with your point. Credit Unions are pretty safe and | tend to be rooted in the community in which they operate in. | techsupporter wrote: | Sure, but consider the marketing. Opening an account at a | credit union requires: | | - Knowing the credit union exists and which ones someone can | join (not all of them are "anyone in [region]") | | - Going to the credit union during business hours (no mean | feat; several of the credit unions around me have shorter | hours on Friday and three hours on Saturday) | | - Qualifying for an account, and not just membership. Lots of | credit unions pull Chexsystems--credit reports for checking | accounts--and a report from the traditional Big Three and | having poor credit will be a bar to an account (something | that the ProPublica article points out as a reason people use | Chime). | | Those steps even presuppose that you find a credit union | that, itself, isn't abusive. I was a member of one that was | outright terrible and had miserable fees, but I had to stick | with them for a year longer than needed because of a | bankruptcy. There's nothing endemic to a credit union that | requires it to be a "nice" entity, just that their structure | makes it more probable. | | And it all comes down to how many of us on this site are | financially savvy or at least have a better understanding of | the pros/cons of how banks and credit unions and "fintech | apps" work. The people being targeted by the marketing for | Chime are less likely to have that same set of information, | and are winding up abused as a result. | kstrauser wrote: | Our CU lets you apply online. I've been to their physical | location once in my life, and that's when a scammer stole | my debit card number. I could either wait for the | replacement to show up in the mail, or swing by their | office to pick one up over lunch. | kstrauser wrote: | I agree. I got started with a CU because their service is | _so_ much better than any bank I 've dealt with. There are | nearly no service charges for normal things. I have access to | a cooperative no-charge ATM network with about 30,000 | locations. I can get in-person service from credit unions I | don't even belong to thanks to a large partnership network. | | A few years ago, we needed to buy another car. I filled out | the loan application on my CU's website. Someone from the CU | called me an hour later to tell me the APR and maximum loan | amount, and to recommend a list of local dealerships that | other members had good experiences with. The car salesperson | did the usual "let me see if we can get you a better | financing deal!" sort of thing, and when we showed him our | loan paperwork, he stopped: "I've never seen an interest rate | that low. I can't beat it. That's amazing." | | I love my credit union and I can't imagine a plausible | scenario where I'd ever go back to using a bank. | protomyth wrote: | Credit Unions (at least around here) have started being just | as bad as banks to get any services from. I know a few people | who got jobs and then "weren't a good fit" for the local | credit union. They went the Walmart route. | inetsee wrote: | "And of course there's a binding arbitration agreement, | requiring all arbitration actions to be on an individual | basis." | | The CFPB Arbitration Rule "prohibits covered providers of | certain consumer financial products and services from using an | agreement with a consumer that provides for arbitration of any | future dispute between the parties to bar the consumer from | filing or participating in a class action concerning the | covered consumer financial product or service." [1] | | I also have this vague recollection of a story recently about a | law firm filing large numbers of arbitration complaints against | companies, resulting in very large bills for those companies, | because they are required to pay for an authorized arbitrator | for each and every arbitration complaint. Unfortunately, I | can't find the link to the story. | | So it sounds as if the people being ripped off by Chime do have | some recourse, if they can just get together with a law firm | that specializes in class action lawsuits. | | [1] https://www.consumerfinance.gov/rules-policy/final- | rules/arb... | anonAndOn wrote: | >large numbers of arbitration complaints | | Doordash tried to weasel out of their arbitration clause but | was denied. | | [0]https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/doordash- | or... | thathndude wrote: | This is absolutely asinine. Find lawyers who will take these | cases. Let's make them feel the pain! | avs733 wrote: | sure! lets have these people living at the absolute edge of | their means take time, have the knowledge to find a good | attorney, have transporation, and have the capital to pay a | retainer...Meanwhile, not having access to their funds has | serious immediate consequences that can (1) mean it the | customer can't bring the case to fruition and/or (2) make any | resolution effectively meaningless. | | This is where a justice system and a law system | diverge...justice without meaningful access is symbolic. | im3w1l wrote: | In my ideal world this clause would be struck down as illegal, | but not only that, the company would be fined for even trying | to put that in the contract. Furthermore, the lawyers involved | would receive formal warnings that they will be disbarred if | they keep it up. | ericlewis wrote: | they changed their core values / agreements after I left but | when I was there: DON'T HIDE BEHIND FINE PRINT was a core | value. It no longer is as they've grown and that makes me | quite sad. | gruez wrote: | >In my ideal world this clause would be struck down as | illegal | | unlikely. A big part of the problem is that the government | has deputized financial institutions with enforcing anti- | money laundering and anti-terrorist financing laws, and those | institution face stiff penalties in the event such | transactions slip through. | 41209 wrote: | To be fair, any bank can freeze your account for any reason. | | You can mitigate this somewhat by having accounts with multiple | banks, but even then they can all be frozen at once. The | benefit of a traditional bank is at least you can show up with | an ID and beg for your money. | | Chime does indeed market to those who aren't financially doing | great, but it's a very complicated situation. Everyone should | have a minimum of 3 months in living expenses saved, but very | few do | quanticle wrote: | And what good does it do me to have three months, six months, | or heck 3 years worth of living expenses saved if the | financial institution I've saved it with tells me that the | account has been closed and the funds have been confiscated? | | We make fun of old people who lived through the Great | Depression for keeping their money as cash or gold, but if | this is the future of finance, well, gold bars under the | mattress are looking batter and better with each passing day. | gruez wrote: | >And what good does it do me to have three months, six | months, or heck 3 years worth of living expenses saved if | the financial institution I've saved it with tells me that | the account has been closed and the funds have been | confiscated | | You have those funds spread out across multiple accounts, | so if one goes down you still have access to some cash. you | know, like a high availability cluster. | R0b0t1 wrote: | They're talking about an event such as being put on the | terrorism no banking list, or being abused with lawsuits | that you can't win and having your money stolen via those | lawsuits. | | It'd take having physical, inconfiscable assets to | protect from that. | gruez wrote: | > They're talking about an event such as being put on the | terrorism no banking list, or being abused with lawsuits | that you can't win and having your money stolen via those | lawsuits. | | That's not the impression I got. I was thinking of your | account being closed by mistake because of fraud/AML | system false positives, not because the legal system was | invoked against you. | lp0_on_fire wrote: | Or, you know, we could champion legislation that would | prevent these banking institutions from arbitrarily | seizing your money. | mindslight wrote: | The feature that has been lost was actually a property of | writing checks. When you use a debit card, or use a website | to make an online payment, you're ultimately asking | permission and the bank is free to say "no" with little | repercussion. Whereas if you write a check on your account, | pass it to someone else, who passes it to their bank, who | presents it to your bank, your bank wantonly dishonoring the | check would result in a much larger fallout. | | Push transactions also put the paying bank on the hook for | whether the transaction was fraudulent or not. Whereas with a | pull transaction, it is up to the receiving bank to clean up | the mess from any fraud. This is why banks (especially | smaller banks) will put daily limit on the ACH transfers you | can initiate, but will process whatever externally-initiated | ACHs land on your account. | gruez wrote: | >Whereas if you write a check on your account, pass it to | someone else, who passes it to their bank, who presents it | to your bank, your bank wantonly dishonoring the check | would result in a much larger fallout. | | I doubt that the law would be on your side if the bank | called and told you that your account was closed, and you | continued writing checks. At best that would prevent | situations mentioned in the article where your account was | frozen without your notice, but you'll still be out $10k | while that's being resolved. | azinman2 wrote: | But if any bank could freeze these assets, where do you | suggest the 3 months be stored? Bitcoin? Under your mattress? | wyager wrote: | With regard to "automated customer handling" (I.e. | intentionally wasting customers' time and energy in the hope | they give up) - I can't help but feel that society has lost a | critical social regulatory mechanism, in the form of being able | to physically beat up people who repeatedly exhibit scummy | behavior. If some airline or bank puts you on hold for 4 hours, | there's no way to throw a few punches or whatever at the people | who are responsible. For most of human evolution, there was | always someone you could hold personally and physically | accountable. Now that this check no longer exists, it's no | surprise that kafkaesque bureaucratic bullshit has exploded in | popularity with customer-facing megacorps. I don't really have | a solution to propose here - maybe encourage people to | vandalize corporate HQs if they're egregiously wronged? It | doesn't feel like a very good solution. | nn3 wrote: | Seems to still exist in India | | https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-18/riot- | brok... | gruez wrote: | >I can't help but feel that society has lost a critical | social regulatory mechanism, in the form of being able to | physically beat up people who repeatedly exhibit scummy | behavior. If some airline or bank puts you on hold for 4 | hours, there's no way to throw a few punches or whatever at | the people who are responsible. | | Yes, beating up the low level, minimum wage employee who has | zero power over your circumstances is definitely the right | way to resolve disputes with a corporation. | | edit: /s | wyager wrote: | My comment is precisely that the people who are actually | responsible for your problems are shielded from | repercussions by either minimum wage support reps or | automated phone systems. | [deleted] | gruez wrote: | What are you suggesting, that without telephones, you can | beat the front line worker up, in hopes that he'll get | mad and beat his boss up, and the violence will continue | up the chain until it reaches the person responsible? | wyager wrote: | No, not at all. I'm suggesting that the level of | structural abstraction is a problem precisely because it | prevents people from directing their rage where it | actually matters. | gruez wrote: | Suppose your hypothetical was true, and whenever you had | a grievance you would speak directly to an c-suite | officer. What makes you think the corporate officer in | question wouldn't take preventive measures to protect | themselves from violence? Business in sketchy | neighborhoods place their employees/cash register behind | bulletproof glass to prevent this exact issue. If a small | business can afford that kind of stuff to protect their | minimum wage employee, I'm sure c-suite officers of | multinational corporations can afford something equal or | better. | wyager wrote: | If they had to bear the cost in any way, they would be | incentivized to reduce the amount of pain they're | inflicting on customers. And of course I'm not literally | proposing that people go and beat up execs; I'm just | pointing out that for basically however long human | civilization has existed, the scale was such that you | always knew _who_ , specifically, was causing you | problems. Now it's all hidden behind a bunch of bullshit. | gruez wrote: | >If they had to bear the cost in any way, they would be | incentivized to reduce the amount of pain they're | inflicting on customers | | Maybe? That might nudge execs into providing better | customer service experience, but if I were an exec I sure | as hell am not going to let my well-being depend on good | customer experience alone. Eventually you're going to get | a crazed lunatic that good customer service can't defuse, | and for that reason I'm going to still require physical | barriers and/or armed bodyguards. | [deleted] | mjevans wrote: | Translation for ya: | | Viva la Revolution - IE Off with the aristocrat's heads, | is far less likely these days for lots of reasons. | | Though neither the parent author, nor I, are advocating | for that response, I'm using it as an extreme to tug your | frame of focus along the correct discussion axis. | | The least of which is that the super wealthy have both | private and public security forces on speed dial. Even | minor protest groups or 'gentleman's disputes' like a | more basic bare assault of vigilante protest are also off | the table. There is no available check against uncouth | behavior which violates the social and moral | expectations. | gruez wrote: | But how does that have anything to do with being | "shielded from repercussions by either minimum wage | support reps or automated phone systems"? If you really | have a grievance against Chime's CEO or whatever, you can | still inflict violence on them. Look up their corporate | office address, procure a weapon, wait outside until they | leave work, and then do... whatever. There are many | reasons why we don't see people inflict violence on "the | people who are actually responsible for your problems", | but it's not because of "minimum wage support reps or | automated phone systems". | [deleted] | quesera wrote: | > society has lost a critical social regulatory mechanism, in | the form of being able to physically beat up people who | repeatedly exhibit scummy behavior | | Wow, that's the most poorly-thought out idea I've read in | recent memory. | | A few more seconds of consideration should be enough to come | up with all the reasons this is such a terrible idea. | | But one that I can contribute from a slightly unusual | perspective (working adjacent to financial fraud detection): | | The aggrieved customer is _very often_ completely wrong about | whom to blame for a problem. They are working with incomplete | information (we all are), they 're in a heightened state of | stress (money is at risk), they're grappling with bad models | of confusing systems (finance is complicated), and at least | half of them are less smart than average (by definition). | | I would say that about 10% of customer service requests start | out hostile and accusatory. Some are literally threatening | violence. And about 99% of the time, the aggressive customer | is wrong. | | So how many innocent noses do you think should be improperly | punched, for your social regulatory mechanism instincts to be | satisfied? | ebiester wrote: | If things are so complex that someone can lose their money | through an intricate set of rules, that's exactly the type | of scummy behavior that we are talking about. It's not a | matter of "whose" fault it is, but rather that a faceless | group benefit from this type of behavior, and it is so | complex that it is nearly impossible to avoid. | | And there are no consequences. | | Sometimes, it's a computer responsible for the decision. | | These would not be so lightly regarded if someone had true | consequences for this behavior. It turns into a complete | lack of societal trust, something that people in turn are | taken advantage by. | quesera wrote: | Yes, some groups leverage that complexity for their own | benefit. Absolutely true. See also: every complex system | that exists. | | But some systems are complex because they're complicated. | And the net of, say, regulated banking, is socially | beneficial. | | So punish the scummy behavior with laws, of course. | wyager wrote: | I'm obviously not proposing it as a solution - just | pointing out that this used to be part of the social | regulatory calculus and now it's gone. | quesera wrote: | It's gone because it worked so poorly for society. | | Most obvious consequence: the physically-strong can get | more justice than the weak. Which leads inevitably to: | the physically-strong make the rules. | ericlewis wrote: | to be fair, this was never the intention of "automated | customer handling" the system I built while working there | though got ruined -- the actual low level employees at Chime | do not in anyway agree with this automated bullshit. | ipython wrote: | Back in the banking crisis days, I applied for a mortgage | modification. I'm on top of paperwork and fax like a boss, so | I made sure all of our documentation was in order and | submitted ahead of schedule. Regardless, the bank tried to | use every trick in the book to delay. I ended up war dialing | all the extensions around my contact to find someone who | worked there with access to my files to push it along. Ended | up succeeding and receiving my modification. | | Imagine trying that with google or Facebook or chime. | | I don't agree with the need for physical violence. | Historically, we have had decent regulatory protections for | customers. I feel like those protections are rapidly being | eroded. The threat of reporting to the bank/insurance/etc | regulator was real and triggered a response even in the most | dense bureaucracies in my experience. | | Best story ever along these lines is when an angry homeowner | who was wrongfully foreclosed upon ended up suing the bank, | winning, then foreclosing on her local branch when they | neglected to pay: https://abcnews.go.com/Business/bank- | america-florida-foreclo... | wyager wrote: | I think this is illustrative of my point; only the most | well-equipped people (lawyers, people who know how to | wardial, etc.) have any chance of grappling with the | kafkaesque bullshit of modern corporate bureaucracy. If | amazon wrongs you, you're fucked. If a shopkeeper wrongs | you, you can go yell at the shopkeeper. I don't know if | there's any legal framework that can fix this. I even have | to admit that it might not be socially optimal to fix this. | perl4ever wrote: | >If a shopkeeper wrongs you, you can go yell at the | shopkeeper | | So, go buy your appliances from a local store, not Amazon | or Lowe's or Home Depot. Do you, or do you not do that? | Because you can totally do that. | sbierwagen wrote: | >I don't agree with the need for physical violence. | Historically, we have had decent regulatory protections for | customers. | | "When you vote, you are exercising political authority, | you're using force. And force, my friends, is violence. The | supreme authority from which all other authorities are | derived." | | Regulatory protections certainly didn't arise from the | void. If you trace them back the New Deal agencies, then | you have to consider the widespread violence that forced | their creation. | Someone1234 wrote: | When your relatively small banking app generates more consumer | complaints than Wells Fargo, you're really doing something very | wrong. | | I would caution that before people try to blame the victims here | ("don't use small banks!" "don't use banking apps!" etc), these | things happen with large/established banks too. With accounts | just being randomly locked for a "fraud investigation" that can | take weeks (particularly for cash movements over 10K). | | What my spouse and me are doing is we have two checking accounts | at different banks with a different one of us as the primary. | Pay-checks are received at one, and a scheduled transfer moves | some money to the second, and bills paid from both. That way even | if one of our accounts did get suspended while a hassle, we could | weather is with relative ease. | bserge wrote: | This happens on the regular with established "normal" banks in | the UK and other EU countries. | | I believe US banks also have the right to suspend accounts for | "fraudulent activity", correct me if I'm wrong. | | Therefore, you can't expect banking startups to be any better. | Fix it on a higher level. | swiley wrote: | >If you don't like it go somewhere else | | >Also crypto should be illegal | chipotle_coyote wrote: | The article starts out by comparing Chime to "normal banks" | that haven't attracted nearly the same level of complaints; the | situation may not be unique to Chime, but those banking with, | well, _banks_ apparently haven 't been running nearly the same | risk of "we took your money too bad so sad". | withinboredom wrote: | Banks have a well established situation for this. When my | debit card purchased a whole boatload (literally) of shoes in | China, my card and account was frozen. | | But guess what, I was still a customer of the bank. I had all | the resources I'd normally have: customer support. | | From there, they shipped me a new card. I was still unable to | buy groceries for a day or two, but I never lost access to my | money. | shkkmo wrote: | One issue is that, as stated in the article, Chime seems to be | much worse and have an order of magnitude more complaints per | customer than actual banks. | | The other issue is that Chime is not legally a bank so is not | regulated in the same way that banks are. | the_snooze wrote: | >The other issue is that Chime is not legally a bank so is | not regulated in the same way that banks are. | | "The rules don't apply to us" is one hell of an unfair | advantage to tout on a VC pitch deck. | hocuspocus wrote: | What we've seen in many cases is startup banks coming to the | market with a streamlined onboarding (open your bank account in | 5 minutes over videochat), and then realizing that many | accounts are used for money laundering. They eventually get a | warning from the financial authorities and subsequently | implement fraud detection algorithms that might be a little too | trigger happy, to be on the safe side. | | It wouldn't be an issue if you could appeal and talk to a | human, but challenger banks are, by design, understaffed, and | they have no legal obligation to explain why they're | terminating your account. | | However I haven't heard of any bank (proper bank, with a | license, challenger or otherwise) keeping your money in such | case. | boromi wrote: | Is something like this possible with M1 Finance? | linsomniac wrote: | This sounds exactly like what has been reported as happening to | One Finance over maybe the last month. Accounts being unexpected | closed for "fraud" reasons, unable to say why they are closed, | etc... One is also a "virtual bank" technology company that uses | a banking partner. Reports are over in the subreddit for One: | https://www.reddit.com/r/OneFinance/ | jonplackett wrote: | I don't understand why people choose a bank based on anything | except excellent customer service. Its the one thing you need | from them urgently when something inevitably fucks up. | ericlewis wrote: | I lobbied for this heavily and was involved in the firing of CS | lead who fucking sucked as his job (sorry for the language), it | was always an uphill battle and one I was willing to die on. | They still to this day do a shit job here. | ericlewis wrote: | Ex-employee of chime here, joined early on (think first 10 | employees) and spent half a decade working there. | | I can guess as to what is going on here. | | I am not sure if my NDA still covers me talking about stuff | there, but most likely is what has happened was folks either: not | using their accounts (this will trigger eventual closer) or | legitimately engaging in practices that would be... improper in | any banking system. It's important to note that Chime is _not_ a | bank either. These closing actually most likely happened BECAUSE | of Bancorp, and not because Bancorp wasn 't policing Chime | properly. There is a lot of CSR practices that occur there that | aren't great and that is mostly due to the fact they refuse(d?) | to spend the money to scale up the actual human teams as well as | finding folks who also didn't want to rip chime off themselves | from the CSR department (I know of one such case that I can't get | into). | | They are having serious growing pains which imo still is of | course no excuse for not caring for the customers, but I have | seen a lot of these cases and I have seen a lot of what people | have been doing then run to the media to complain about, Chime | doesn't just willy nilly close accounts without a serious reason. | A lot of the times the customers are mad they couldn't pull a | fast one on the risk team... Anyway, I am not really here to | defend them. If you have any other questions I could probably | answer them. | | That said, I chalk this up to their massive size (well over | 12,000,000 customers) and a large portion of refusing to scale up | Human Resources and instead trying to use to tech to deal with a | lot of this. A few complaints like this aren't all that weird, | bigger banks have way more complaints and do way worse things. | | Edit: I really can't talk about what I know would cause these | things to happen, as, it would tip of fraudsters or people who | legit have the feds after them. But the tools we used to figure | this stuff out were pretty advanced. | | Edit 2: In my tenure, I saw lots of systematic fraud and also saw | lots of those exact people take to social media to complain about | it. That is anecdotal of course. But I saw a lot of shit that | would blow your minds. I also saw many individuals engaging in | fraud that they may not have even realized was fraud. One such | example was the everyday Jane/John trying to deposit the same | check multiple times when they knew full and well it was | deposited first. Not to mention the number of dick picks people | sent in via check deposit. Thanks to patents from other banks I | was not allowed to deploy the ML platform I built for the mobile | app to capture ONLY the check and its information, as opposed to | human parts that shouldn't be in the picture. | | Edit 3: Again, I am not defending them, but if you are not in | Finance then honestly you're out of your depth understanding what | is going on here. No offense. | | Edit 4: This also reminds me of the time Bancorp went down for | like 3 days and everyone took to twitter to say that China hacked | Chime which was both funny, sad, and scary. Of course that isn't | what happened, Bancorp is just fucking shitty. | plttn wrote: | As someone sitting kinda on the outside of fintech/finance, it | just feels like there's a lot less value add and market | oversaturation these days from "hipster app with Bancorp | account". | | I previously had Simple (rest in peace), and was totally okay | with it, but it clearly wasn't worth it to BBVA/PNC. I went to | SoFi just because they're making moves to get their own | charter, rather than sitting with Bancorp. | | Now you've got Robinhood, Credit Karma, Chime, etc etc all | running Bancorp backing accounts so really there's no | fundamental difference between any of them. | ericlewis wrote: | I can't really talk about it, but that charter things is... | in their minds | the_snooze wrote: | >A few complaints like this aren't all that weird, bigger banks | have way more complaints and do way worse things. | | The article directly contradicts what you're saying. Do you | think the piece paints an unfair or inaccurate characterization | of the complaints? (from the article) | | >Of the 920 complaints filed about Chime, 197 were tagged as | involving a "closed account." The CFPB's complaints are labeled | inconsistently, and many of the other 723 also detail problems | involving accounts that were closed against customers' will. By | comparison, Wells Fargo, a bank with six times as many | customers and a lengthy recent history of misbehavior in its | consumer bank, has 317 CFPB complaints tagged for closed | accounts over the same time period. Marcus, the new online bank | created by Goldman Sachs, with 4 million customers, has | generated seven such complaints. | ericlewis wrote: | I think that people are more quick to react against Chime | than they are the folks who also hold their insurance, | mortgages, and possibly other things. Lest they have even | _more_ issues with the bank. I don 't doubt Chime handles | things wrong, but I do know that every person on that team | when I was there did there best to try and resolve the issue. | teachrdan wrote: | This comment makes no sense. If my bank closed my account | without warning and revoked access to all my funds, it | wouldn't matter if they had my mortgage or not: I'm going | to make a complaint. | | >I do know that every person on that team when I was there | did there best to try and resolve the issue | | "My colleagues had good intentions back when I worked | there" is nothing against the facts. If you had read the | article, you'd see that Wells Fargo, the bank that everyone | loves to hate--with 6x the customers of Chime!--has only | slightly more complaints for "closed account." | | It's nice for you, as a former employee, to imagine that | people are unfairly complaining more about Chime taking | away all their money. But you could just as easily make the | reverse argument: Chime users are less wealthy than users | of other platforms and are therefore less likely to have | the time and wherewithal to complain to the CFPB. | | You probably don't like that argument, but you have to | admit that I am presenting exactly as much evidence as you | are. | ericlewis wrote: | It's true, but the comment does make sense. It happens | all the time, some people complain, some don't. Wells | Fargo was more than happy to let fraudsters and all sorts | of legal impropriety happen under their books. Might be | one reason they had less complaints. Chime, doesn't have | that benefit of being Wells Fargo's size tbh. | bsg75 wrote: | > I chalk this up to their massive size (well over 12,000,000 | customers) and a large portion of refusing to scale up Human | Resources and instead trying to use to tech to deal with a lot | of this. | | This is the unfortunate side of disruptive tech. It can't - and | shouldn't - replace people. But it seems the allure of cost | controls is too strong even if it hurts customers, and | eventually the business. | ericlewis wrote: | I argued this constantly, I was in charge of mobile and it | made me furious when bad CSR resulted in our actually pretty | great mobile apps getting bad reviews. I am also guilty of | creating the chat bot that is used by Chime, though I created | it for a very different purpose from how it is used today and | management basically mutilated something that actually worked | pretty great. | amacneil wrote: | Sounds accurate from my experience working in fintech (crypto, | not banking, but subject to many the same regulations). We | would literally have customers with dozens of transactions | referring to drug deals, close their account (as required by | both federal law and our banking partners), and then have them | go around filing complaints and starting reddit threads about | how bad we are for closing their account. You can't take | complaints like this at face value without knowing the full | story (even if people complain to the media). | | The reality in the US is that financial institutions are liable | for detecting any and all illegal activity on their platforms, | reporting it to FinCEN, and closing accounts. If you fail to do | this you lose your money transmission licenses and/or banking | partnership. Depending on the exact nature of the issue, | holding customer money hostage can even be a legal requirement. | | Scaling up support at fintech companies is definitely hard, and | certainly the companies can and should do a better job of this. | But dealing with the regulatory burden is also crazy difficult, | and many folks doing shady stuff (fraud, drugs, money | laundering, CP, etc etc) are more likely to use the newer | platforms. | | Real banks often just don't have to deal with this as much, | because they make you sign up in person, with ID, and ask you | all sorts of questions about your source of income etc up | front. However, real banks can and do also close customer | accounts (used to be very common for folks who bought crypto | with their checking account, for example). | ericlewis wrote: | This was common in our experience as well, without being a | HUGE BANK you really do have to actually police this stuff. | kotaKat wrote: | They are. The last several(!) cases I've seen of people | complaining Chime killed their accounts got (possibly | fraudulent) PPP loans funneled into their accounts. | ericlewis wrote: | Then it sounds like alarms went off over at Bancorp and Chime | is doing it's job | Animats wrote: | Their terms are awful.[1] They can do whatever they want. | | Compare the terms from Bank of America, especially the | "Withdrawal" section.[2] There are restrictions on how soon you | can withdraw how much, and they tell you those up front. You can | get at least $225 the day after a deposit. For new customers | within 30 days of opening the account, withdrawals over $5,525 | may be required to wait up to 5 days. For large cash withdrawals, | you may need to go to a "cash vault" center and provide you own | armored car. Stuff like that. | | [1] https://www.chime.com/policies/chime/chime-user- | agreement/#t... [2] | https://www.bankofamerica.com/salesservices/deposits/resourc... | gruez wrote: | >[1] https://www.chime.com/policies/chime/chime-user- | agreement/#t... | | >You may terminate acceptance of this Agreement at any time by | permanently deleting the Application in its entirety from the | Authorized Device | | Who wrote this agreement? Clearly they have no idea how apps or | online accounts work. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-07-06 23:01 UTC)