Product: Credit card

This complaint is due to the company closing complaint XXXX and XXXX without proper resolution. As a reminder, should the company close this complaint without proper resolution, the consumer will be required to open another complaint and will continue to do so until they receive a proper resolution. That said, unless the company would like to drive up the number of complaints they have filed with and thus draw the attention of the CFPB, than it's in their best interest to actually handle this complaint properly. Recap of complaint XXXX and XXXX -- Consumer holds an open-end credit card with the company. Between XXXX XXXX, 2023 and XXXX XXXX, 2023, someone used the consumers card to make 6 unauthorized purchases totaling {$1000.00} at a merchant ( " XXXX XXXX '' ) the consumer has not and likely will not do business with. The consumer reported the transactions to the company as fraudulent, refreshed their credit card number through the application provided by the companies co-partner of the card to prevent further fraudulent transactions, and filed a police report with the XXXX XXXX Police Department, which under California Law, is done under the same penalties as perjury. The consumer has provided the company with a copy of said police report, as well as the same narrative documented in the report, both verbally and in writing. Since reporting the fraudulent transactions to the company, 3 of them have been properly investigated with the transaction removed from the consumers credit account, however the investigations of the remaining 3 have been repeatedly mishandled. As a result the company continues to hold the consumer liable for the half of the fraudulent transactions its wrongly deemed valid, in violation of the Fair Credit Billing Act and the Credit Card Agreement, which states in pertinent part under the section titled YOUR LIABILITY FOR UNAUTHORIZED TRANSACTIONS the following : You ( the consumer ) will not be liable for any unauthorized transactions made on your Account. Also, fraud is not something that can be half done, so if 1 reported transaction is fraudulent, theyre all fraudulent. From its subpar investigation, the company has stated that the merchant alleges to have shipped and delivered the goods and/ or services to the consumers address. This appears to be the sole fact the company has used to support its claim that the transactions are valid. This however does not prove the consumer purchased or took possession of the goods. In fact, this information does nothing more than support the narrative and theory, the consumer has provided both the company and XXXXPD regarding the suspected thief. Further, even if the consumers theory and belief that his former next door neighbor was the culprit who gained unauthorized access to his home computer, a device which was sold and manufactured by the companies co-partner, stole the consumers personal financial information, and made the unauthorized purchases, turns out to incorrect, there are still over 200 other individuals who reside in the same building and therefor have the same address as the consumer, any one of whom could have had the means to do so and would and do have access to the communal mailroom, where tenant delivers are commingled and left for pick. That said, unless the merchant has direct evidence, such as signature confirmation from the carrier, that the consumer took possession of the shipped items, and/ or the company can show the consumer filed a false police report, than there is no conclusive evidence to support the companies view that the transactions are valid. Thus in holding the consumer liable for the transactions, the company has violated the laws set forth in the Fair Credit Billing Act. Please note that at the beginning of XXXX  2023 the consumer suffered a serious injury to his XXXX  and required XXXX, which severely limited his mobility through the end of XXXX  2023. During this time the consumer rarely left their home and only retrieved mail and other deliveries on average 1-2 times per week and typically did so only after he received delivery confirmation for items he was expecting to be delivered. Since he is not a customer of the merchants, he would not have been notified of any shipments delivered from them, making retrieval by his former next door neighbor, who was aware of the consumers temporary disability, even easier to do.