Customers of mobile banking app Beam Financial appear to have had enough, as they have launched a lawsuit against the firm accusing it of negligence, violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, violation of the Unfair Competition Law, deceit by concealment, and breach of implied contract.

The lead plaintiff in the case is Frederick Chang. He, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a complaint against Beam on November 10, 2020, at the California Northern District Court.

The complaint alleges that the plaintiff and class members deposited thousands of dollars with Beam, based on express promises that Beam would pay high interest and that their money would be accessible “24/7”. Unfortunately for the plaintiff and the class, neither were true.

After opening accounts and trusting Beam with their money, the plaintiff and the class members have not been paid the interest promised. Additionally, the plaintiff and the class members have been prevented from accessing or withdrawing any of the money they deposited with Beam.

Beginning in at least as early as March 2020, Beam began having trouble processing customer withdrawals. The plaintiff and members of the class have submitted requests through their Beam mobile apps to withdraw funds from their accounts and have thus far not received those funds. In some instances, withdrawal requests have been pending for months.

On October 27, 2020, Beam issued a statement to Beam account holders in which it acknowledged that problems had persisted for “the past few months.” In that statement, Beam furthered its concealment scheme by blaming its network of intermediaries for the delays, in particular its ACH vendor Dwolla.

On November 9, 2020, Beam subsequently released another statement to Beam account holders in which it promised that Dwolla and Beam’s financial institution partner, Huntington National Bank, would “release the temporary freeze on [Beam account holder] funds as early as this coming week.”

Aside from Beam’s failure to process withdrawal requests, it has also failed to pay to interest as promised. Indeed, some Beam account holders who relied on Beam’s advertising that interest would accrue and be paid daily now report that their Beam accounts have stopped gaining interest at all.

Chang brings this action as a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of a proposed class (the “Class”), defined as:

“All persons who established a Beam account and deposited money therein during the period from and including September 1, 2019 through the present”.

The plaintiffs seek a Court order requiring restitution and disgorgement of the revenues wrongfully retained as a result of Beam’s wrongful conduct. The plaintiffs also seek award of actual damages, compensatory damages, statutory damages, restitution, and statutory penalties, in an amount to be determined.