NOT FOR MONEY • NOT FOR PROFIT • NO MARKETING • NO ADS • CONSUMER ADVOCACY ONLY
Fintech Fuckery.org
Have You Been Fucked Over By Your Online “Bank”?
Documenting corporate misconduct, one receipt at a time.
Battle Log
The Case
Legal AnalysisPrior Offender — CFPB Consent Order 2025-CFPB-0004
On January 30, 2025, the CFPB ordered Wise to pay $2.025 million in penalties and $450,000 in consumer redress for advertising inaccurate fees and failing to properly disclose exchange rates. However, the order was amended on May 15, 2025, reducing the civil penalty from $2.025M to just ~$45,000 — a 97.8% reduction. Wise stated it had already voluntarily paid the $450K to consumers before the order was even finalized. The conduct described in this case mirrors the same pattern: fees taken, service not delivered as promised.
Promissory Estoppel (Bait & Switch)
- 01Wise formally approved the account holder for card payments on Jan 27, 2026.
- 02Relying on this approval, a $1,037.50 transaction was processed on Feb 4.
- 03Wise revoked the feature on Feb 5 — AFTER capturing the funds.
- 04The website cited in the rejection was the SAME website on file during approval.
- 05You cannot retroactively apply a policy to seize funds processed under a valid approval.
The "(Human) Agent W-04" Admission — Misrepresentation
- 01On Feb 13 at 2:27 PM, (Human) Agent W-04 confirmed in writing: "the transfer will be refunded until the end of the day."
- 02Client was informed. Business decisions were made based on this official statement.
- 03Hours later, (Human) Agent W-05 retracted the promise and admitted (Human) Agent W-04 gave "false information."
- 04A company representative's written confirmation constitutes an actionable representation.
- 05Wise is liable for damages caused by reliance on their agent's false statement.
Unjust Enrichment — Fee Retention
- 01Wise is holding BOTH the principal ($1,037.50) AND the fee ($43.88).
- 02The service (card payment processing) was unilaterally cancelled by Wise.
- 03You cannot retain profit (fees) for a service you refuse to render.
- 04Wise publicly stated on Trustpilot: "in this case we aren't able to refund the fee."
- 05This is textbook unjust enrichment — profiting from a service they declined to perform.
Filed Complaints & Regulatory Actions
| Agency | Case ID | Description | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| CFPB | #XXXXX-XXXX3622 | Money not available when promised | Rejected — Business Account |
| CFPB | #XXXXX-XXXX6805 | Material breach of Consent Order 2025-CFPB-0004 | Rejected — Business Account |
| NYDFS | Pending | Unsafe practices by licensed money transmitter | Filed |
| BBB | Pending | Deceptive business practices | Filed |
| FBI IC3 | Pending | Wire fraud — 18 U.S.C. § 1343 | Filed |
| OCC | Pending | Regulatory non-compliance | Filed |
| DE OSBC | Pending | Wise is incorporated in DE — banking regulator notified | Filed |
The Regulatory Gap — And Why It Matters
Both CFPB complaints were rejected — not because the practices weren't harmful, but because the account is an LLC business account. The CFPB's consumer protection mandate under Dodd-Frank primarily covers individual consumers, not businesses. Wise knows this.
This is the gap they exploit. A small LLC owner processing their first card payment gets the same predatory treatment as the 1,000+ individual consumers cited in the consent order — but without the same regulatory safety net. Same company. Same playbook. Different label on the victim.
That doesn't mean there's no recourse. State regulators like the NYDFS (which licenses Wise as a money transmitter) don't draw the same business-vs-consumer line. The FTC's Section 5 authority covers unfair practices against businesses, too. And state attorneys general can investigate deceptive business practices regardless of the victim's corporate form. The CFPB rejections don't close the door — they just reveal which door Wise left open.
The Contract Trap
Contract vs. RegulatorsThe Hard Truth
Why the contract doesn't matter
Wise's Customer Agreement is a 30-page fortress. Every clause is engineered to give them maximum power and minimum accountability. If this case went to court purely on contract law, Wise's attorneys would tear it apart in five minutes.
But this was never a contract case.
The weapon isn't the contract. It's the chaos. Six agents. Six different answers. A written promise retracted the next morning. An approval email followed by a retroactive revocation. A company already under a CFPB consent order going on social media to publicly defend the exact practice they were fined for.
Regulators don't read contracts. They read patterns.
The Public Confession
Feb 16, 2026Nearly identical copy-paste responses on Google Maps & Trustpilot · Instagram DM
“Similarly, if one of these card payments is refunded, then we're unable to return the fees, as mentioned here: wi.se/business_cards”
It is their policy to retain fees even when the transaction fails
This is the exact practice the CFPB fined them for in 2025
Exhibit D — Public admission of UDAAP violation
Below is every clause Wise relies on. We show their likely defense — and why regulators will still nail them.
The Regulatory Picture
What the CFPB and NYDFS actually see
A company already under a consent order for failing to refund fees when funds weren't available — caught doing the exact same thing again, then publicly defending the practice on social media.
Six agents. Six different answers. Nine days. A written promise of a same-day refund, retracted the next morning. This isn't “one mistake by a low-level employee.” This is a broken system.
A chargeback caused by their own failures — used as justification to hold funds indefinitely. The client disputed because Wise didn't settle on time. Then Wise cited that dispute to stop settling. Circular reasoning regulators specifically flag in UDAAP examinations.
A $2.025M fine didn't change anything. The consent order was supposed to fix these practices. It's been one year. The same patterns. The same copy-paste responses. The same fees retained for undelivered services. The fine was a cost of doing business — not a deterrent.
Wise's contract protects them in court. It does not protect them from the CFPB, NYDFS, or FinCEN. Regulators don't enforce Terms of Service — they enforce federal consumer protection law.
Has Your Online “Bank” Wrapper
Fucked You Over, Too?
You're not alone. Build your case below — every story strengthens the fight for accountability.