Product: Credit card or prepaid card

I have included copies of two letters describing this situation wrote to Citicard after my initial dispute was summarily denied because multiple Citicard employees gave me incorrect guidance on the time limit for filing a dispute. 

Realizing I had been scammed by a merchant I reached out to Citicard three times to confirm there was no time limit for me to file a dispute, to a person I was told no. Part of the process of the " Not as described Chargeback '' first requires that I try to work things out with the merchant. Since this was a medical procedure this workout took me a full twelve weeks as that was the time frame given to allegedly see results. 

I filed my dispute on the 91st day right after the merchant stood me up for my final appointment. Citicard took the dispute with no mention of time frame and sent a letter to the merchant to investigate. Citicard never asked for my documentation in this matter. Despite not hearing from the merchant they denied my dispute for not being filed within 60 days. Not only does this dismissal run contrary to what Mastercard describes in the requirements of the chargeback, it is the exact opposite of what Citicard employees told me. 

A letter to the CEO has gone unanswered and the XXXX again denied my dispute for time limit without an investigation of their own employees negligence much less the fraud taking pace by the merchant. 


Dear Mr. XXXX : As a longtime Citi customer maintaining two credit cards in impeccable standing I am thoroughly frustrated if not perplexed that I find myself writing this letter. Much of my frustration is derived from the fact I consulted three of your employees on this matter with respect to the time frame I had to file my dispute against XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. One of these calls was to XXXX XXXX in your Dispute Resolution Department who assured me there was no time limit for me to file my dispute along with I thought addressing my other concerns. 

Adding to my frustration I was defrauded by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX   and his company XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Among other things XXXX used false and deceptive advertising gain my business. I purchased a procedure called XXXX XXXX  for {$1800.00} which claims up to 24 % targeted and XXXX  XXXX XXXX  in XXXX XXXX to XXXX  and XXXX  twelve weeks post treatment. I received none of the purported reduction from a procedure I now consider to be nothing more than a scam. 

Manager XXXX XXXX offered no clinical proof during my first follow up appointment on XX/XX/XXXX that there was any XXXX XXXX  from the XXXX procedure. Her sole approach was follow up photos she played with in her office trying to wow me with before and after. I was unimpressed with her ruse and said as much in that we had just taken my XXXX  and XXXX. After a little more back and forth along these lines Ms. XXXX indicated the procedure was still working and I needed to come back after the full 12 weeks. Something I reluctantly agreed to. She gave me a note indicating that they would possibly use my photos for promotional purposes implying I would get some cash back if I agreed to this. 

The second thing XXXX XXXX mentioned on this note ( copy included ) was possibly doing the procedure over. When I spoke with XXXX XXXX she told me I wouldnt have to do the procedure over in order to be in compliance of working with the merchant for me to file a dispute. My clinical impression of XXXX being a sham is secondary in my dispute against   XXXX XXXX XXXX in the light of the easy to confirm deceptive trade practices. 

XXXX XXXX XXXX website contains stock photos alleged to be actual patients and markets XXXX XXXX  as if these are results they obtained for their clients ( see attached photos ). In reality if you bury down on other provider websites you will find various doctors unrelated to the XXXX  practice credited for the photos. 

Paraphrasing ; claims that are outright misleading or false, especially those that could harm consumers are prohibited by federal and state consumer protection laws. A common form of false advertising involves deceptive or misleading product descriptions, particularly claims that a product has certain features or benefits that it does not, or that it is of a higher quality than it actually is. Examples include : Misleading illustrations or photographs. 

In Nevada where XXXX  and its owner XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  are registered and licensed to practice respectively, as a consumer I am protected by Deceptive Trade Practices NRS 598.0915 and Deceptive Advertising NRS 207.175. These statutes closely follow Federal law. XXXX XXXX also appears to be in direct conflict with the truth in advertising legislation contained in the XXXX Assembly Bill ( A.B. ) 456 based on AMA standards which in part state communication shall not be misleading because of the omission of necessary material information, shall not contain any false or misleading statement, or shall not otherwise operate to deceive. In addition to contacting your company I have filed complaints with the Nevada Attorney General and Medical Board concerning this fraud. 

Citi summarily denying my dispute without asking me for clarifying written information has allowed a licensed physician to be financially rewarded for violating existing Federal and State laws concerning deceptive business practices, AMA guidelines, and consumer protections surrounding Implied Merchantability that seek to provide standards to prevent this manner of fraud. 

The attached letter dated XXXX, XXXX XXXX indicates I only had 60 days from my first statement to file a complaint. Again your employees over a series calls told me I had unlimited time. Further complicating this is the medical service for which I was defrauded had an advertised twelve week period before I would expect to see maximum results. One of the conditions of a chargeback is that I attempt to work things out with the merchant. This required the full twelve weeks for my follow up appointment. Incidentally, when I showed up for my appointment on XX/XX/XXXX the office was closed, locked, and XXXX XXXX XXXX never returned my calls. I would love to send you the time stamped video of me banging on their door. On XX/XX/XXXX I relayed the above to the Citi worker that took the information on my dispute. 

On XX/XX/XXXX I called the Citi number and despite wanting to hold to speak with someone about my dispute I was disconnected via your automated system. 

On XX/XX/XXXX I called and spoke with XXXX who indicated that information was requested from XXXX XXXX and they had 60 days to reply. At that time there was no response from them. Frankly there is nothing they could provide since XXXX  nullified their standing for keeping my money unenforceable when they broke Federal and State laws to unlawfully obtain it. 

On XX/XX/XXXX when I called to get my balance and suspected something was wrong with my dispute I waited to speak to XXXX XXXX. Very frustrated with his lack of knowledge and inability to review records I asked to speak to a supervisor. He continued to tell me none were available and finally I had to relent to a call back within 72 hours. I would have liked to review the above with a capable member of your staff rather than take an afternoon and write you, unfortunately thus far that promised call hasnt materialized On the XXXX I also signed up for Citi Online, for effect I asked your search engine how long I have to file a dispute. No answer is forthcoming. 

Please charge back the merchant XXXX XXXX XXXX based on their deceptive and fraudulent business practices. This is the same protection you would afford any customer that was a victim of a crime with much less supporting information than I just provided. Should you need more details I will certainly provide what I can, including responses from the Medical Board and AG when they arrive. 

Please have a representative with a direct call back number contact me at XXX-XXX-XXXX to further discuss this matter and confirm in writing when this fraud has been properly investigated and resolved. 


Dear XXXX : I am writing to ask that you review my complaint in its entirety including the misrepresentations made to me by XXXX employees. Most notably I was told by three employees that there was no time limit for me to file a dispute. My dispute was subsequently denied for not being filed within 60 days. 

This letter is a follow up to my call with XXXX ( XXXX ) and XXXX ( XXXX ) dated XX/XX/XXXX. For your reference I have included a letter I wrote to the executive office on this matter dated XX/XX/XXXX and picked up at the Post Office on XX/XX/XXXX. Thus far I have not received a response which as a victim of fraud and longtime Citi customer I find incredibly frustrating. 

XXXX XXXX XXXX in my opinion is perpetrating a near perfect scam and Citis current handling of my dispute will allow it to continue to my detriment potentially other Citi customers. If consumers such as me are told the XXXX procedure will take 12 weeks to work, we must try and work things out with the merchant, and then denied our disputes claiming we only had 60 days to file its easy money for corrupt venders. To that end I have filed complaints with the NV Attorney General and Medical Licensing board due to violations of Federal and State laws prohibiting false advertising and deceptive business practices. 

During my call with XXXX ( XXXX ) she indicated that I in fact had 120 days to file the dispute and filed on the 91st day. But then went on to tell me the real reason my dispute was denied was that I received the service. XXXX did not seem to understand that my dispute was not one of if I received a service but the nature of fraud that surrounded my purchasing it and a lack demonstrated of clinical efficacy. When I was transferred to XXXX ( XXXX ) he indicated the time limit and not the services, but was concerned enough to escalate the matter. 


As of yesterday XXXX XXXX XXXX website is still representing stock photos as real patients, ( see attached ). Under Federal Law advertising must tell the truth and not mislead consumers. In addition, claims must be substantiated. XXXX XXXX XXXX has both misled and not substantiated their claims. Testimonials and endorsements must reflect the typical experiences of consumers, unless the ad clearly and conspicuously states otherwise. A statement that not all consumers will get the same results is not enough to qualify a claim. Testimonials and endorsements can't be used to make a claim that the advertiser itself can not substantiate. My suspicion of fraud is solidified by the fact that Citi has received no response from the merchant proving their claims and refuting mine. 

When I explained my dispute to the Citi representative that took my initial claim he suggested I file with Goods and Services not as described or defective. As a cardholder I must meet the following : I engaged in the transaction. I am not disputing they did a procedure ; I am disputing because there has been no proof from the vendor they performed the procedure I paid for, it was performed correctly, or if it works at all. If there was any clinical merit to what they are selling why would they still present stock photos as actual patients? For that matter why are so many other vendors offering the same service employing the same subterfuge? 

I contacted the merchant and attempted to resolve the dispute. The XXXX procedure allegedly took up to 12 weeks to work. My resolution culminated with my calls not being returned and showing up to a locked office with the lights out for my final appointment. 

The merchant refused to refund my money. 

Plus the following : The service was either not performed correctly or could not be used for the intended purpose. And the XXXX service did not conform to their false and deceptive advertising using stock photos claimed to be real patients. Under US common law as you know contracts become voidable when they are obtained using fraud and deceit. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX  also finds himself in violation of the AMA Ethics Opinion. 
In conclusion I am asking that Citi give a proper review to my dispute and not once again dismiss it without looking at the law and ethical violations that occurred in this transaction. 

American Medical Association Code of Medical Ethics Opinion 9.6.1 Because the public can sometimes be deceived by the use of medical terms or illustrations that are difficult to understand, physicians should design the form of communication to communicate the information contained therein to the public in a readily comprehensible manner. Aggressive, high pressure advertising and publicity should be avoided if they create unjustified medical expectations or are accompanied by deceptive claims. The key issue, however, is whether advertising or publicity, regardless of format or content, is true and not materially misleading. 
Nothing in this opinion is intended to discourage or to limit advertising and representations which are not false or deceptive within the meaning of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. At the same time, however, physicians are advised that certain types of communications have a significant potential for deception and should therefore receive special attention. For example, testimonials of patients as to the physicians skill or the quality of the physicians professional services tend to be deceptive when they do not reflect the results that patients with conditions comparable to the testimoniants condition generally receive. 

Objective claims regarding experience, competence, and the quality of physicians and the services they provide may be made only if they are factually supportable. Similarly, generalized statements of satisfaction with a physicians services may be made if they are representative of the experiences of that physicians patients. 
Because physicians have an ethical obligation to share medical advances, it is unlikely that a physician will have a truly exclusive or unique skill or remedy. Claims that imply such a skill or remedy therefore can be deceptive. Statements that a physician has an exclusive or unique skill or remedy in a particular geographic area, if true, however, are permissible. Similarly, a statement that a physician has cured or successfully treated a large number of cases involving a particular serious ailment is deceptive if it implies a certainty of result and creates unjustified and misleading expectations in prospective patients. 

Consistent with federal regulatory standards which apply to commercial advertising, a physician who is considering the placement of an advertisement or publicity release, whether in print, radio, or television, should determine in advance that the communication or message is explicitly and implicitly truthful and not misleading. These standards require the advertiser to have a reasonable basis for claims before they are used in advertising. The reasonable basis must be established by those facts known to the advertiser, and those which a reasonable, prudent advertiser should have discovered. Inclusion of the physicians name in advertising may help to assure that these guidelines are being met. 

https : XXXX