Product: Credit card

I am most disappointed by how Bank of America handles credit card displutes and will be using my credit cards from other banks ( notably XXXX XXXX ) as I have no confidence in Bank of America to represent the interests of the customer in such matters. 

New Dispute with XXXX  Most recently, on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX I noticed that XXXX had not posted the credit to my account which they agreed to on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. The charges were in process in the XXXX system on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX but the charges did not reach Bank of America until XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. 

On XXXX XX/XX/XXXX I attempted to initiate a dispute with Bank of America to preserve my rights. I was most disillusioned as Bank of America automatic dispute system refused to let me correctly describe the transaction, i.e. a subscription serivce with a XXXX year term. XXXX had offered a disounted web site service contract in XXXX hoping that after XXXX years I would pay the normal rate ( more than twice as much ). 

However, instead I switched to another service, XXXX, and signed up for an even less expensive discounted XXXX year contract ( actually 51 months with the special sale offer ) with XXXX. 

The switch had been completed by XXXX XX/XX/XXXX before the contract termination date of XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. However, on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX notified me that rather than terminating the service as threatened in previous emails they would be charging my credit card in any case. I contacted XXXX customer serivce on that date and correctly unsubscribed from their service and received a promise of a credit in XXXX to XXXX business days as the charge was already in process and could not be stopped. 

On XXXX XX/XX/XXXX I went on to the Bank of America to contest the charge and found that the system would not permit be to correctly describe the dispute or submit appropriate supporting documentation. 

My first problem is that the system had some absurd restriction that subscription services can not have a term longer than XXXX month which is patently false. Instead the system forced me to recategorize the dispute as some other inaccurate description but would not allow me to correctly describe my merchant contact dates as XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ( before the charge date of XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ) ignoring the merchant processing time which was a little excessive in this case. 

Further, the system did not give me any opportunity to submit my emails to XXXX or their responses. When the system finally accepted the dispute I had no idea how the dispute was categorized ( other than it was certainly incorrect ). 

Having observed that Bank of America would not give me any further feedback or opportunity to clarify the complaint, I contacted XXXX that same date, XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, and complained that they had not issued the credit as promised in their XXXX XX/XX/XXXX email. They issued a credit immediately with an apology and the credit reached Bank of America on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. 

However, if XXXX had not been honorable in this matter I am sure that they could have convinced Bank of America to deny my dispute and reinstate the charges XXXX months from now without any notice to myself or providing me with any opportunity to correctly describe and document the dispute as happened with XXXXXXXX XXXX 

XXXXXXXX XXXX  Rejected XXXX Bank of America denied my XXXXXXXX XXXX dispute of XXXX XX/XX/XXXX on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. 

After that denial, I began my preparations for contesting the XXXX XXXX  charges in small claims court. While you ( and XXXX XXXX  ) cited a purported 'clickwrap ' agreement ( clicking check box which purports to indicate having read and agreed to terms ), it does not appear that either party is familiar with the actual case law for 'clickwrap ' agreements. 

A more accurate summary of 'XXXX ' agreements is that their validity is little more than traditional verbal agreements in that it is incumbent on the web based party to demonstrate that there was actual reading, understanding, and agreement to the terms. This is actually a quite arduous task which XXXX XXXX did not do in any case. 

On XXXX XX/XX/XXXX I gave XXXX XXXX  an opportunity to settle prior to my filing suit and on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX issued the requested refund which was received on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX by Bank of America. 

However, Bank of America is itself at risk of a class action suit due to its restrictions on customers ability to accurately and completely document their disputes and Bank of America 's absurd acceptance of claims that 'XXXX ' agreements are valid without the merchant actually demonstrating that the customer did, in fact, read, understand and agree to the terms of the agreement ( an arduous task with today 's browser technology ). 

Date / time stamped typed initials by the consumer ( instead of the non standard 'mutant ' click boxes used by XXXXXXXX XXXX ) and click back links from emails could be construed by courts to be indicative for having read, understood, and agreed to the specified terms but XXXX XXXX never preserves any adequate evidence that the consumer received, read, understood or agreed to the contract. 

I hope that Bank of America will reconsider any disputes of XXXXXXXX XXXX charges based on the somewhat lengthy analysis of the failings of XXXX XXXX purchase web flow which I have attached. 

Further, any merchant who claims agreement based on purported 'clickwrap ' agreements should be tasked to actually prove that the consumer really read, understood and agreed to the purported terms of agreement ( date and time stamped server records of sending the agreement and consumer initials of acceptance being sent back to the server ). 

Both XXXX XXXX and Bank of America risk significant losses due to class action suits for their unlawful business practices in these matters. Further, there are indications that Bank of America has struggled with significant penalties for failing to adequately protect consumer rights with expensive settlements in the past. Such penalties could be avoided or reduced in the future through prompt corrective action. It is hoped that my experiences can be used as a guide for how to avoid such penalties in the future.