Corporate Misconduct Accountability Project
Walmart Inc. and Branch Messenger, Inc. · Enforcement action
Walmart and Branch Forced Drivers Into Predatory Accounts
Walmart and Branch Messenger coerced thousands of delivery drivers into predatory financial accounts, extracting over $10 million in fees while blocking access to wages and violating federal consumer protection laws.
CRITICAL SEVERITY
TL;DR
Walmart required its Spark delivery drivers to receive wages through Branch Accounts, opening these accounts without driver consent using personal information obtained without authorization. Drivers faced over $10 million in transfer fees, weeks-long delays in accessing wages, and threats of termination if they refused the accounts. Meanwhile, Walmart and Branch repeatedly promised same-day pay that never materialized, leaving low-income workers struggling to pay for groceries and rent.
This is what happens when corporations treat workers as captive customers.
1,000,000+
Branch Accounts opened for Spark Drivers
$10M+
Fees paid by drivers for instant transfers
100,000+
Accounts funded before drivers gained access
600,000+
Accounts created but never accessed by drivers
The Allegations: A Breakdown
Core Allegations
What they did · 8 points
| 01 | Walmart mandated that Spark Drivers receive wages through Branch Accounts starting August 2021, threatening termination for anyone who refused. Walmart and Branch opened these accounts without driver consent using personal information obtained without authorization, then deposited wages before drivers could access them. | high |
| 02 | Defendants deposited tens of millions of dollars into over 100,000 Branch Accounts before drivers gained access, often creating weeks-long delays. Drivers could only retrieve their own wages by agreeing to Branch terms and conditions they had never seen. | high |
| 03 | Branch charged drivers either 2 percent of transfer amounts or $2.99 (whichever was greater) to instantly move wages to their own bank accounts. Drivers collectively paid over $10 million in these fees during the mandatory Branch period. | high |
| 04 | Walmart and Branch repeatedly promised drivers instant access to earnings and same-day pay through Branch Accounts. Spark Drivers never received same-day pay through Branch at any point. | high |
| 05 | Branch labeled most Spark Driver accounts as business accounts without driver knowledge or input, then included terms claiming drivers waived all protections under federal consumer financial law. Branch used only the tax classification provided by Walmart to make this determination. | high |
| 06 | Branch failed to conduct reasonable error investigations for thousands of consumers, instead automatically rejecting fraud claims if merchants provided matching name and address documentation. For debit card disputes, Branch simply forwarded claims to a chargeback processor and took no further action if the chargeback failed. | high |
| 07 | Branch as a matter of policy refused to honor consumer requests to stop payment on preauthorized transfers, despite telling consumers in disclosures they had this right. Branch did not track when consumers made stop payment requests. | high |
| 08 | Branch opened Branch Accounts capable of receiving deposits before providing consumers with required initial disclosures, often accepting wage deposits into accounts before consumers ever saw the terms. This violated the timing requirements for disclosures under federal electronic fund transfer law. | high |
Worker Exploitation
Who was harmed · 6 points
| 01 | The typical Spark Driver is a woman with children who lacks a college degree and earns low income. These drivers commonly used Spark earnings for groceries, housing, utilities, transportation, childcare, and paying down personal debt. | high |
| 02 | Walmart removed Spark Drivers from the program if they could not or would not use Branch Accounts, making them ineligible to drive and earn income. When Walmart had already deposited earnings to these accounts, Branch transferred the money back to Walmart rather than to the terminated driver. | high |
| 03 | Many Spark Drivers wanted to continue receiving earnings in accounts of their choice but faced challenges and costs when attempting transfers. Daily withdrawal and transfer limits prevented drivers from accessing their full earnings when needed for rent or other bills. | high |
| 04 | Some Spark Drivers were distraught about losing jobs because they could not use Branch. Others were confused by the multi-step access process and concerned about Defendants using their personal information without permission to open accounts. | high |
| 05 | Branch Accounts lacked check-writing capability, forcing drivers to transfer money out to write checks for rent. This caused some drivers to be late on housing payments. Branch also prohibited drivers from making their own deposits without paying fees to third parties. | medium |
| 06 | Branch charged $2 fees for cash withdrawals from out-of-network ATMs, which were generally located in retail stores. Drivers had difficulty accessing in-network ATMs, particularly when needing cash after stores closed. | medium |
Profit Over People
Corporate motives · 6 points
| 01 | Walmart contracted with Branch hoping to streamline costs, grow the Spark Driver program faster, and advertise same-day pay. Branch and Walmart agreed that Branch would be the exclusive payment provider for the program. | high |
| 02 | Branch does not offer accounts directly to consumers. Instead, it partners with companies like Walmart that hire and pay workers, using those employers to enroll workers in Branch Accounts and provide the only means of accessing them. | high |
| 03 | Branch increased its customer base beyond what it could obtain had it not opened accounts without consumer consent and predicated fund access on agreement to Branch terms. With this increased customer base, Branch earned additional revenue. | high |
| 04 | Walmart reduced the costs of paying Spark Drivers and scaled the program more quickly by forcing drivers into Branch Accounts. This arrangement allowed Walmart to offload payment processing while maintaining control over how drivers accessed wages. | high |
| 05 | Branch charged higher instant transfer fees for business-labeled accounts than consumer-labeled accounts. A driver with a business-labeled account paid 20 percent more in fees on a $300 transfer than a consumer-labeled account would pay. | medium |
| 06 | Interchange rates, the fees that banks charge merchants when consumers make purchases using debit cards, are generally higher per transaction for business accounts. Branch benefited from these higher rates by mislabeling consumer accounts as business accounts. | medium |
Regulatory Failures
Legal violations · 8 points
| 01 | Branch violated the Electronic Fund Transfer Act by failing to promptly initiate or conduct reasonable error investigations. Until April 2022, Branch had no policies or procedures for handling error notices and no mechanism for tracking them. | high |
| 02 | Branch violated disclosure requirements by providing initial disclosures after the first electronic fund transfer and after consumers contracted for the service. Branch opened accounts capable of receiving transfers before giving consumers any terms or conditions. | high |
| 03 | Branch included impermissible waivers in business-labeled account agreements stating that accountholders are not entitled to protections under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and other federal consumer financial laws. These accounts were consumer accounts under the law. | high |
| 04 | Branch failed to provide required information in initial disclosures, including accurate statements about consumer liability for unauthorized transfers and summaries of stop payment rights. Since 2020, all Branch Account initial disclosures have misstated consumer liability. | high |
| 05 | Branch periodic statements failed to include required transaction details such as type of transfer, type of account involved, terminal locations for ATM transactions, and fee amounts. Error resolution notices in statements told consumers they could only report debit card errors, not all error types. | high |
| 06 | Branch violated recordkeeping requirements by failing to retain complete and accurate information about error notices and evidence of compliance. Between January 2020 and April 2023, Branch records for errors and error notices were often incomplete, missing, or failed to track complete information. | high |
| 07 | Branch made misleading advertisements under the Truth in Savings Act by claiming Branch Accounts provided instant access to wages and same-day pay when these capabilities were unavailable. Branch also falsely advertised that consumers could make free transfers to any bank account. | high |
| 08 | Walmart and Branch violated the Consumer Financial Protection Act by engaging in unfair, abusive, and deceptive practices. They materially interfered with driver ability to understand account terms, took unreasonable advantage of driver inability to protect their interests, and made false promises about instant and same-day pay. | high |
Exploiting Delay
Holding wages hostage · 6 points
| 01 | There were often significant, sometimes weeks-long delays between when Defendants opened accounts and when Spark Drivers gained access. When earnings were deposited before access, the delay in account access meant delay in pay. | high |
| 02 | Between July 2021 and August 2023, Walmart and Branch deposited tens of millions of dollars in wages into over 100,000 Branch Accounts before Spark Drivers gained access to them. Drivers could only obtain deposited money by completing Branch access process and agreeing to Branch terms. | high |
| 03 | Walmart and Branch deposited hundreds of thousands of dollars into thousands of accounts that drivers never accessed. As of May 2024, wages still remained in some of these accounts. For others, Branch returned wages to Walmart after weeks passed without access. | high |
| 04 | Spark Drivers often contacted Walmart to report they had not been paid. Walmart responded by telling drivers they needed to accept Branch terms and access their Branch Account to obtain earnings, forcing agreement to terms as condition of receiving wages. | high |
| 05 | Branch for numerous errors failed to provide provisional credit within 10 business days when it could not resolve the error in that timeframe. Branch also failed to determine whether errors occurred within required 90 business day periods for debit card transactions. | medium |
| 06 | Branch for numerous errors failed to report investigation results to consumers within 3 business days of determining whether an error occurred. This left consumers in the dark about the status of their disputed transactions and missing funds. | medium |
Economic Fallout
Financial harm · 6 points
| 01 | During the period when Defendants required Branch Accounts, Spark Drivers paid over $10 million to Branch in fees to instantly transfer hundreds of millions of dollars to accounts of their choice. These fees represented 2 percent of each transfer or $2.99, whichever was greater. | high |
| 02 | A Spark Driver earning $500 per week would pay $10 every week to instantly transfer earnings to their own account. This amounted to $520 per year just to access wages they had already earned. | high |
| 03 | Many Spark Drivers indicated the transition to Branch caused personal financial challenges. Because Branch Accounts lacked check-writing, drivers had to transfer earnings out to write rent checks, causing some to be late on housing payments. | high |
| 04 | One Spark Driver with housing payments due that could not be paid by debit card found Branch ATM withdrawal limits prevented withdrawing enough cash to pay bills on time. Transfer alternatives either required paying fees or waiting longer, making both options unworkable. | high |
| 05 | Defendants requirement that Spark Drivers be paid through Branch Accounts placed wages in a financial institution that caused or risked loss of funds and failed to address consumer complaints and disputes. Branch did not respond in a timely manner, and sometimes not at all, to consumers needing assistance. | high |
| 06 | Branch imposed daily and monthly limits on how much money Spark Drivers could transfer out of accounts, preventing drivers from accessing full earnings when needed. These limits applied to both instant transfers and free ACH transfers through third party services. | medium |
Corporate Accountability Failures
Evasion tactics · 7 points
| 01 | Walmart engaged a third-party administrator to work directly with Spark Drivers on its behalf by recruiting, onboarding, and processing compensation. Walmart authorized the administrator to act on its behalf and held it out to drivers as having that authority. | high |
| 02 | Walmart had knowledge of and authority to control its administrator conduct with respect to Spark Driver payment. Walmart retained the right to reject or approve any additional vendors and dictated the number of drivers to hire and screening standards. | high |
| 03 | Walmart closely monitored and directed its administrator performance through daily conversations and instructions, and monthly and quarterly audits and reviews. Walmart knew about the administrator agreement with Branch and did not raise any objection. | high |
| 04 | Branch does not determine whether business or consumer labels are appropriate for individual accounts, including for Spark Drivers. Branch depends solely on whether its partner classifies workers as independent contractors or employees for tax purposes. | high |
| 05 | Branch does not give accountholders the opportunity to select which account label applies to their accounts or inform accountholders which labels exist and what the differences are. Branch takes no action before or after account opening to verify the appropriate label. | high |
| 06 | Branch performs the same onboarding process for all Branch Accounts, including those for Spark Drivers, relying on the same personal consumer information including consumer names and social security numbers. The accounts operate almost exactly the same regardless of label. | high |
| 07 | Branch applies a single set of compliance policies and procedures regardless of whether an account is labeled consumer or business, notwithstanding that different obligations would apply if Branch were truly offering accounts for business purposes versus personal, household, or family purposes. | medium |
The Bottom Line
Systemic harm · 6 points
| 01 | Walmart and Branch opened Branch Accounts and deposited Spark Driver wages into those accounts without informed consent, and in many instances on an unauthorized basis. They then predicated driver access to earnings on consent to Branch terms and conditions. | high |
| 02 | Defendants engaged in unfair, abusive, and deceptive practices by materially interfering with driver ability to understand Branch Account terms, taking unreasonable advantage of driver inability to protect their interests, and making false promises about instant and same-day pay. | high |
| 03 | Branch violated the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Truth in Savings Act through inadequate error investigations, failure to honor stop payments, deficient disclosures and notices, poor recordkeeping, misleading advertisements, and improper waivers of consumer rights. | high |
| 04 | During the period Spark Drivers used Branch debit cards, their top use was for groceries, with other common uses including pharmacy and clothing store purchases. This demonstrates that regardless of account label, drivers used accounts for personal, household, and family purposes. | high |
| 05 | Walmart and Branch created over 600,000 Branch Accounts for Spark Drivers that drivers never accessed and that appear to have had no activity. This massive scale of unauthorized account creation highlights the systemic nature of the misconduct. | high |
| 06 | The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau brings this action seeking permanent injunctions, monetary relief including refunds and restitution, civil money penalties, and additional relief to address violations of the Consumer Financial Protection Act, Electronic Fund Transfer Act, and Truth in Savings Act. | high |
Timeline of Events
2018
Walmart established Spark Driver program for last-mile deliveries
2018
Walmart engaged Delivery Drivers Inc. as third-party administrator for Spark Driver program
June 2021
Walmart administrator contracted with Branch as exclusive payment provider
July 2021
Defendants launched account opening process requiring Branch Accounts
Late July 2021
Walmart and administrator began communicating to existing drivers that Branch Accounts would be required
Before August 10, 2021
Defendants opened unauthorized Branch Accounts for most existing drivers without knowledge or consent
August 10, 2021
Walmart and administrator deposited wages into tens of thousands of unauthorized Branch Accounts
August 12, 2021
Walmart administrator issued press release announcing Branch partnership with promises of instant access to payouts
2022
Walmart added limited Branch information to Spark Driver online application
April 2022
Branch established first policies and procedures specific to error notices and investigations
June 2022
Branch began charging $2 fee for each cash withdrawal from out-of-network ATMs
August 17, 2022
Walmart purchased substantially all administrator assets and hired vast majority of its employees
February 2023
Walmart added links to Branch Account terms and conditions in Spark Driver application
August 2023
Walmart stopped sharing every new driver personal information with Branch without authorization
May 2024
Wages still remained in some Branch Accounts that Spark Drivers never accessed
December 23, 2024
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau filed complaint in U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota
Direct Quotes from the Legal Record
QUOTE 1
Coercion and threats
allegations
“Walmart told Spark Drivers they would be terminated from the Spark Driver program if they did not use a Branch Account.”
💡 This proves Walmart used job termination threats to force workers into predatory financial accounts.
QUOTE 2
Unauthorized account opening
allegations
“At some point before August 10, 2021, without the Existing Drivers’ knowledge and without obtaining their consent, Defendants opened unauthorized Branch Accounts for most Existing Drivers.”
💡 Defendants opened accounts without permission, then held wages hostage to force acceptance of terms.
QUOTE 3
Extortion through wage access
allegations
“Defendants opened Branch Accounts and deposited Spark Drivers’ wages into those accounts without their informed consent, and in many instances, on an unauthorized basis, and then predicated Spark Drivers’ access to their earnings on consent to Branch’s terms and conditions.”
💡 Workers could not access their own earned wages without agreeing to terms they never saw before account opening.
QUOTE 4
Vulnerable worker targeting
workers
“The typical Spark Driver is a woman, has children, does not have a college degree, and is low income.”
💡 Defendants deliberately targeted economically vulnerable workers who had few alternatives.
QUOTE 5
Promised benefits never delivered
allegations
“Walmart’s Administrator repeatedly told Spark Drivers that same-day pay would be available in September 2021, and when that date passed, that same-day pay would soon be available.”
💡 Defendants used false promises of instant pay to justify forcing workers into exploitative accounts.
QUOTE 6
Never implemented promised features
allegations
“Spark Drivers have never received same-day pay through the Branch Account.”
💡 The primary benefit Defendants advertised to justify mandatory Branch Accounts was never provided.
QUOTE 7
Massive fee extraction
economic
“During the period that Defendants required Branch Accounts, Spark Drivers paid over $10 million to Branch in fees to instantly transfer hundreds of millions of dollars to an account of their choice.”
💡 Workers paid millions in fees just to move their own wages to their own bank accounts.
QUOTE 8
Systematic rights violations
regulatory
“Branch included language in the terms and conditions stating that accountholders are prohibited from using their accounts for personal, family, or household purposes, and that they are not entitled to the protections of EFTA and other federal consumer financial law.”
💡 Branch attempted to strip workers of federal consumer protections by mislabeling their accounts.
QUOTE 9
Failed error investigations
regulatory
“For example, if the consumer alleged a transfer was unauthorized due to theft or fraud and the merchant provided documentation that matched the accountholder’s name and address, Branch would automatically decline the consumer’s Notice of Error without further investigation.”
💡 Branch refused to investigate fraud claims, leaving workers vulnerable to financial losses.
QUOTE 10
Refusal to honor stop payments
regulatory
“Since January 2020, as a matter of policy, Branch has not provided consumers with the ability to stop payment of preauthorized electronic fund transfers and Branch does not track when consumers made requests to stop payment.”
💡 Branch systematically violated federal law by refusing to honor consumer stop payment requests.
QUOTE 11
Delayed wage access
delay_tactics
“Between approximately July 2021 through August 2023, Walmart and its Administrator deposited, and Branch accepted, tens of millions of dollars in Spark Driver wages into over 100,000 Branch Accounts before Spark Drivers gained access to them, often weeks later.”
💡 Tens of millions in worker wages sat inaccessible for weeks while workers struggled with bills.
QUOTE 12
Forcing agreement through wage withholding
delay_tactics
“These drivers had to complete Branch’s access process and ‘agree’ to Branch’s terms and conditions to gain access to wages they had already earned.”
💡 Defendants used wage withholding as leverage to force workers to accept unfavorable terms.
QUOTE 13
Personal financial harm
economic
“Many Spark Drivers indicated that the transition to Branch caused personal financial challenges. For example, because Branch Accounts do not have check-writing capability, Spark Drivers had to transfer their earnings out of their accounts in order to write a check, which caused some Drivers to be late on payments such as rent.”
💡 Forced use of Branch Accounts directly caused housing payment delays and other financial hardship.
QUOTE 14
Impossible choices
economic
“Whether they decided to transfer their wages or keep them in a Branch Account, Spark Drivers faced barriers at every turn.”
💡 Every option Defendants gave workers came with significant costs or delays.
QUOTE 15
Corporate motivation
profit
“In June 2021, Walmart’s Administrator contracted with Branch in the hopes that processing wage payments through Branch Accounts would enable the Administrator to streamline costs, grow the Spark Driver program faster, and advertise the possibility of same-day pay.”
💡 The arrangement was designed to benefit Walmart and Branch, not to help workers.
Frequently Asked Questions
What exactly did Walmart and Branch do wrong?
Walmart forced its Spark delivery drivers to receive wages through Branch Accounts, threatening termination for anyone who refused. Walmart and Branch opened these accounts without driver permission, using personal information obtained without authorization. They deposited wages into accounts drivers could not access, then forced drivers to agree to Branch terms to retrieve their own money. Branch charged over $10 million in fees for workers to transfer wages to their own bank accounts.
Who are Spark Drivers?
Spark Drivers are gig workers who deliver Walmart orders from stores to customers. The typical Spark Driver is a woman with children who lacks a college degree and earns low income. These workers commonly used their Spark earnings for basic necessities like groceries, rent, utilities, and childcare.
How much did this cost workers?
Spark Drivers collectively paid over $10 million in instant transfer fees to move their wages from Branch Accounts to their own bank accounts. Individual drivers earning $500 per week paid $10 weekly or $520 annually just to access wages they had already earned. Branch also charged $2 fees for ATM withdrawals and imposed daily limits that prevented workers from accessing their full earnings.
Did Walmart and Branch deliver the promised instant and same-day pay?
No. Walmart and Branch repeatedly promised Spark Drivers they would receive instant access to earnings and same-day pay through Branch Accounts. These promises began in July 2021 and continued through June 2022. Spark Drivers never received same-day pay through Branch at any point.
What federal laws did Branch violate?
Branch violated the Electronic Fund Transfer Act by failing to conduct reasonable error investigations, refusing to honor stop payment requests, providing deficient disclosures and notices, and maintaining inadequate records. Branch violated the Truth in Savings Act by making misleading advertisements about account capabilities. Branch also included illegal waivers attempting to strip consumers of federal protections.
How did Branch handle fraud and error claims?
Branch automatically rejected fraud claims if merchants provided documentation matching the account holder name and address, without conducting any investigation. For debit card disputes, Branch simply forwarded claims to a chargeback processor and took no further action if the chargeback failed. Until April 2022, Branch had no policies or procedures for handling error notices at all.
What is a Branch Account?
A Branch Account is a financial product offered by Branch Messenger that includes a deposit account at Evolve Bank and Trust. Consumers access these accounts only through Branch mobile application or debit card. Branch is not FDIC insured. Branch does not offer accounts directly to consumers but instead partners with employers like Walmart to enroll workers.
What happened to drivers who refused to use Branch?
Walmart removed Spark Drivers from the program if they could not or would not use Branch Accounts, making them ineligible to drive and earn income. When Walmart had already deposited earnings into these accounts, Branch transferred the money back to Walmart instead of to the terminated driver who earned the wages.
How long did drivers wait to access their wages?
There were often significant, sometimes weeks-long delays between when Defendants opened accounts and when Spark Drivers gained access. Between July 2021 and August 2023, Walmart and Branch deposited tens of millions of dollars into over 100,000 accounts before drivers could access them. As of May 2024, some wages still remained in accounts drivers never accessed.
What can I do if this happened to me or someone I know?
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau filed this enforcement action on December 23, 2024, in U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. The Bureau is seeking monetary relief including refunds of fees paid, restitution, and civil penalties. Affected workers should document all fees paid, delays in wage access, and communications with Walmart or Branch. Workers may also file complaints with the CFPB at consumerfinance.gov or by calling 855-411-2372.
This story is dedicated to a good friend of mine. Who works for Walmart and absolutely despises it there.
💡 Explore Corporate Misconduct by Category
Corporations harm people every day — from wage theft to pollution. Learn more by exploring key areas of injustice.
- 💀 Product Safety Violations — When companies risk lives for profit.
- 🌿 Environmental Violations — Pollution, ecological collapse, and unchecked greed.
- 💼 Labor Exploitation — Wage theft, worker abuse, and unsafe conditions.
- 🛡️ Data Breaches & Privacy Abuses — Misuse and mishandling of personal information.
- 💵 Financial Fraud & Corruption — Lies, scams, and executive impunity.
