Coercion combined with ignoring customer complaints is the most accurate characterization.

No. Words have meaning. Forcing someone to do something means coercion + intent to achieve a specific outcome. There was no evidence that WF intended anyone to commit identity fraud. You don’t get to redefine the meaning of well understood words.

There was a decade of complaints and more than enough to connect the dots. Looking the other way because you like the results goes to intent.

Threatening ones job unless they sign up X many customers for a product is coercion. Sales quotas are inherently coercive. If you choose to do zero quality control and employees learn cheating is okay then it is bad.

The branch employees were effectively forced to cheat because that was the only way to meet their sales goals and keep their jobs. The executives knew this, but chose to look the other way.