Product: Credit card

Merchant : XXXX XXXX Date Posted : XX/XX/XXXX Amount {$1000.00} Transaction : XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX {$1000.00} *Formal complaints filed with XXXX, Texas Attorney General, and FTC , attached as PDFs along with correspondence between me and the merchant. 

I purchased a mattress from XXXX XXXX last year and it was defective. Immediately, I let them know that the mattress was not what it was supposed to be. 

1 ) I was told when I purchased that it was not a Bed in a Box mattress. I asked because I'd heard that they often have issues. 

2 ) It never inflated properly and was basically unusable. 

When I connected with XXXX XXXX in person, they gave me an email address to send pictures to. When I sent the email, I was told that my sale was final and that the manufacturer, XXXX refused exchanges. I went to XXXX to understand why. They said that the sale of the product to another business disconnects them from further consumer issues with the product and that they would not have been contacted about this purchase. 

When I reconnected with XXXX XXXX, they said that I could exchange the mattress for the same mattress or purchase a more expensive mattress. I told them that I'd rather have my money back as I needed something sooner and I'd already been deceived in person and by phone. Also, Texas state law says that sales on defective products can not fall under " All sales Final '' policies.

To date, I have filed multiple complaints with no resolution. I have filed more than one dispute with Navy Federal Credit Union after exhausting all options to rectify the situation alone. They denied my claim because it fell outside of their 60-day policy though XXXX XXXX Core Rule 13.3 allows for 540 days. XXXX  Core Rule 13.3 states that for reasons of defectiveness or " not as described '' items, XXXX  allows up to 540 days for disputes. They also state that the cardholders expect for their core rules to be carried out by card issuers. 

My understanding is that In disputes involving XXXX Core Reason 13.3, the merchant ( XXXX XXXX ) may not avoid liability by directing the cardholder ( Me ) to seek resolution from the product manufacturer ( XXXX XXXX ), which they did. Likewise, 13.3 supersedes the merchants ( XXXX XXXX 's ) refund policy, which is what they quoted -- no returns or refunds. This policy is also against the Texas Attorney General 's Deceptive Trade policy. 

A 13.3 chargeback may also be used when the merchandise ( the mattress ) arrived in damaged condition ( which it did ), or when the cardholder is disputing the overall quality of the goods or services they received. 

So when the merchant is deceptive, the manufacturer is not to be involved, and the customer goes through 100 hoops to rectify the situation because the card issuer has a policy that discourages chargebacks before attempting to solve the issue yourself, how does a consumer fall within a 60-day policy? And still, when all criteria is met, what would be the reason that a card issuer would not honor the core rules of the servicer?

Veterans are a protected class, specifically in the space of deceptive trade practices. I would like to be sure that the companies that I deal with are not participating in taking the business of military members and veterans without providing honest services.