Product: Checking or savings account

I purchased an online e-commerce course in hope of learning an effective way to start an online store. The course was created by a guru named XXXX XXXX, In numerous advertisements for the course, both written and video, XXXX claims that there is a 14 day guaranteed return with no additional requirements. Upon opening and viewing the early parts of the course, I realized that the startup costs are higher than XXXX deemed necessary to start the business in his marketing messages. After about 10 days, I decided to return the course once finding out it resembles a scam and is not a legitimate way to start a business, and went online for more information about returns. Once I visited the XXXX XXXX website, I see a page with a return policy that includes several unreasonable requirements for return. XXXX lists that for a refund, the user must complete a long module in the course within the 14 day period. In addition, the user must submit evidence of their coursework before being considered for a refund. The amount of coursework required was very long and unreasonable for someone who decided they no longer want to keep the course. Given that I am a student and work part time, I was not spending precious time working on a course I no longer had belief in. Under any circumstances other than those listed on the website, the customer support team did not accept returns, even after I emailed them about my situation. I had agreed to a three month payment plan of {$390.00} a month before buying the course. Since I was denied a refund, I ended up having {$390.00} automatically removed from my account on the XXXX of XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX. I disputed the charges with my bank, Chase, on XX/XX/2019. I explained the situation in a letter and provided print-outs of XXXX XXXX website as evidence of the misleading advertising and unreasonable refund requirements he places on buyers. I also included a heavily supported XXXX post from an Internet user who had a similar experience to mine and viewed XXXX XXXX as a scam after his experience with the course. The bank accepted my argument and refunded me for the {$390.00} withdrawn in XXXX and XXXX. However, they refused to reimburse me for the XXXX payment. The first payment from XXXX was billed to me on XX/XX/2019. According to the bank, since I filed my claim on XX/XX/XXXX, it was 61 days after the first charge and, therefore, the XXXX charge fell out of their 60 day policy for refunds through claims. However, I find it unusual for Chase to agree with a customers evidence about a seedy business practice, and proceed to only partially refund the victim. Regardless of their policy, a transaction that has been considered faulty needs to be reimbursed in full. Chase had already given me a full reimbursement for all three payments in XX/XX/2019. However, a month later they bring up their 60 day policy and make an unauthorized withdrawal of {$390.00} from an account that was linked to mine, which belonged to a relative. My frustration became so high that I immediately proceeded to close my account following their refusal to reimburse me. Following my account closing, Chase apparently believed it was within means to instead remove the money from an individual account with a completely different account holder. My mothers account was not involved in this transaction but was affected regardless, due to Chase overstepping its boundaries and compensating for the {$390.00} from an account that was completely separate from my identity and unrelated to this dispute. My mothers name was not involved at all in my transactions with XXXX XXXX and my name was not on her account. Therefore, this is a very fraudulent and unethical practice, and not a fair, proper way to resolve this issue. It is also perplexing that Chase did not acknowledge this 60 day policy when initially reimbursing me fully and giving me the OK to spend the money. Overall, I am very frustrated with the way Chase has treated two of its former customers, especially given that we became victims of a scam, and intend to take legal action if not reimbursed.