Poor indeed. While I kind-of appreciate the privacy/legal issues involved, why did Matt say anything at all then? He's already claimed a specific customer did

Poor indeed. While I kind-of appreciate the privacy/legal issues involved, why did Matt say anything at all then? He's already claimed a specific customer didn't meet KYC requirements, has named the locale of the employer (New York), the customer's claims and their responses are quite public on the Facebook page and the OP, so dodging this question just looks like they have something to hide. If the customer didn't exist or was completely misrepresenting the situation, I think it'd be fair game for them to protect themselves by denying his specific allegations. Saying "The customer didn't complete our KYC process" doesn't help at all, when the customer is claiming the KYC process is impossible to complete because of contradictory and unreasonable requirements from the company! As it stands, I'm not really seeing any other reasonable explanation than that Freelancer.com's customer service is clueless, their KYC department is confused, and they're more concerned about form-letter damage-control responses on social media, than about helping their customer.