Product: Credit card

I reached out to Affirm to dispute my purchase with their third-party partner/merchant, XXXX  XX/XX/XXXX for TILA and UDAAP violations. Initially, the credit provider, Affirm, declined to even open a dispute, citing that I needed to work with the merchant to receive a refund. I was actively doing this, but I was not getting any traction from the merchant. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, I reached out to Affirm again to advise that it's against federal regulations to deny me the opportunity to dispute my charges, especially after providing documentation on my specific scenario. On XX/XX/XXXX, Affirmed opened the claim, halted payments due for the purchase, and asked me to provide evidence for my claim by XX/XX/XXXX. I shared an abundance of evidence with Affirm on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. Immediately following the evidence due date at XXXXXXXX XXXX. on XX/XX/XXXX, I received an update from Affirm that they ruled in favor of the merchant, ignoring the TILA and UDAAP violations that I shared. 

Below are specific details about the TILA and UDAAP violations that have forced me to open this complaint. Please note that my dispute evidence directly references financial regulations as outlined in the Dodd-Frank Act that Affirm and the third-party merchant, XXXX, are legally required to adhere to. 

I disputed my XXXX  charge with Affirm because I was dissatisfied with my purchase, and XXXX  ' policies and response directly violate the following federal regulations : The Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ) : Upon placing an order from XXXX  for the XXXX XXXX  Panel Bed In Grey And Mendota Oatmeal, I experienced several delays with actually receiving the bed. Due to this, I requested to cancel my order ; however, XXXX  ' customer support team would not allow me to do this without incurring a significant cancellation fee for shipping costs of $ XXXX, citing their cancellation policy. When I went to the website to review the policy under the " Terms of Use '' that is linked and acknowledged in my purchase, I noticed that there is limited verbiage around customer cancellations. In fact, the only language that appears on the page is under the " Fees and Deductions '' section. It states, " You choose to cancel your order, and it is past the cancellation timeframe, '' but doesn't specify what the cancellation timeframe is. This is housed in another section within their " Policies, '' but isn't directly linked in the " Terms of Use '' conditions I agreed to with my purchase. As such, I should have been granted a cancellation without a fee as the full policy for my purchase wasn't disclosed, and I should have been refunded ; however, this wasn't the case. Proof of this is linked in the recording below and the images attached. 

Unfair Deceptive or Abusive Acts or Practices ( UDAAP ) : The cancellation policy above also falls under this financial federal regulation as the whole policy was not disclosed, which is deceptive. According to the UDAAP, the policy that XXXX provided represented an omission or practice that misled me, the consumer, about my rights to cancel my order. 

Additionally, upon placing my order, I reviewed XXXX ' return policy as outlined in the " Terms of Use '' ( Terms and Conditions ), it states that " We are pleased to offer a 30-Day Hassle-Free Return Policy that starts on the day you receive your order. If you are dissatisfied with your purchase for any reason, you can return it to our warehouse for a refund within 30 days of delivery in the original condition and packaging. '' The key word in this policy is " Any Reason. '' Upon receiving my order, the bed was damaged. It was not altered or assembled, just simply taken out of the original packaging. The original packaging was kept and could be used to ship back my order ; however, XXXX is refusing my return. While XXXX offers alternatives to returning furniture for things like cosmetic damage, ultimately, their policy states that I can make a return for ANY REASON. 

As you will see in my interactions with XXXX, they will cite their " Delivery Policy '' section in the " Terms of Use '' as to why I shouldn't be able to make a return. Unfortunately, this counterclaim doesn't hold and is ultimately deceptive as it doesn't state that a return can't be made due to damage. The policy is also contradictory to the " Return Policy '' section above and is very misleading and harmful to the consumer. The " Delivery Policy '' section doesn't state that it overrides the " Return Policy '' nor addresses how damages impact my right to return for any reason. I was willing to actually pay the $ XXXX XXXX quoted during my cancellation inquiry to return my order ; however, that was refused. They kept referencing their right to " right to repair or replace any item that arrives damaged to a customer, at [ their ] discretion. '' Had I known that I wouldn't be able to return the furniture for " any reason '' as disclosed, I wouldn't have ordered from this merchant. The policy wasn't clearly written and there should have been a redirect/link out to the various pages that were applicable to other policies included. Therefore, the representation, omission, or practice in XXXX ' " Terms of Use '' was material and it is illegal to not provide a refund given this. 

Please find the URL to a XXXX XXXX  demoing the deceptive practices on the website here : XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX? XXXX Please let me know if you need anything else.