Product: Credit card or prepaid card

On XX/XX/2021 I was charged {$37.00} to my Visa by an online merchant but never received the merchandise I ordered. Instead, the merchant sent me something completely different, and when I notified the merchant, they didn't even deny it, refused to refund the charge unless I paid international shipping to send it back to them ( which would be more than the charge ), and then the merchant tried to get me to buy what they had sent me. I told the merchant I wanted only what I ordered and to either send that or refund the charge. They offered me progressively larger partial refunds to the charge they made if I would accept what they had sent, acknowledging they had not sent what I was charged for. I demanded they refund the charge or send the merchandise I had ordered. I further advised them that I was under no obligation to pay to send back to them merchandise which I had not ordered, and that they were in violation of 16 CFR Part 435 for trying to charge me for it. 

On XX/XX/2021 I disputed the charge with Bank of America for non-receipt of merchandise I was charge for. 

On XX/XX/2021 Bank of America notified me they had disputed the charge with the merchant bank. 

On XX/XX/2021 - OVER A MONTH LATER, Bank of America said they could not reverse the charge because the merchant provided proof of a delivery. They said I would need to respond to them within 10 if I had additional information. 

On XX/XX/2021 I sent Bank of America a written statement by certified mail ( attached ) indicating / including : - demand that this dispute be escalated to pre-arbitration and as necessary, network arbitration by Visa - the proof of delivery the merchant provided didn't prove WHAT was delivered. 

- photographs of what was delivered and screen prints from the merchant website of what was ordered - copies of all emails I had with the merchant establishing my above narrative of communications with the merchant - proof that the evidence of delivery provided by the merchant was in fact not for the item in question and dispute, and therefore their proof of delivery was irrelevant to the transaction and to the dispute. 

- proof in the emails from the merchant that the merchant knew the above, and that the merchant was clearly holding my funds hostage to get me to comply with their bate and switch sales tactic in violation of multiple federal and California laws, and that applicable law protected me from any obligation to pay to return, or to return at all, the unordered merchandise, and as a matter of Visa and Bank of America 's dispute policies I had not received the item I ordered and was charged for, therefore there was no condition for me to have to return anything for a refund. 

On XX/XX/2021 Bank of America sent me a statement refusing to refund the charge, refusing to further do anything on the grounds " Without proof the merchandise was returned, we have no dispute rights, '' and " we are now beyond timeframe to further pursue this matter on your behalf. '' Bank of America 's decision shows they are unwilling to discharge their legal obligation to escalate my dispute to pre and network arbitration, and in fact, to even consider the evidence and statements I have provided, by ridiculously arguing I failed to provide evidence that I have returned the merchandise I want a refund for, when I have yet to receive the merchandise - which is the entire basis of the dispute! Upon financial injury, Bank of America adds insult to the intelligence in trying to shirk their legal obligation by stating " well, now it's too late for us to do anything '' - after dragging its XXXX for more than a month and all the while, I have complied with every deadline the law mandates or the bank has stipulated. 

I've been a customer of Bank of America 's for more than twenty years, believing every time I pulled out my card, the protection they advertise and I pay them and Visa for would be there for just such an event as this. But when the rubber ( or plastic, as it were ) meets the road, Bank of American can't even be bothered to carry out the procedures of their own and Visa 's policy to comply with the law - making them even bigger fraudsters than the merchant in this dispute.