Consumer complaint received 2023-09-21
Company: Bread Financial Holdings, Inc.
State: TX
Product: Credit card
Sub-product: General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Problem with a purchase shown on your statement
Sub-issue: Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement

Complaint:
On XXXX, an unauthorized order was placed through XXXX  for {$580.00}, onto my Sony Visa Card managed by Comenity Bank.

Consumer received an email along with an order number from XXXX indicating that an order had been placed through order number XXXX. Consumer contacted the merchant, XXXX responsible for the unauthorized charge to dispute and remove the charge and credit back my account. According to XXXX, the merchant stated that the order number XXXX did not exist and the merchant stated that an order that did not exist would not be able to be cancelled! Yet, my credit card was charged by the merchant. 
After Consumer made an attempt to ask the merchant to remove the charge and cancel order XXXX, Consumer received an email indicating that the order was active but shipping was delayed. Therefore, Consumer contacted the merchant again to cancel the order and/or remove the charge/s from my credit card account and again, merchant insisted that the order was not a valid order. Due to the fact the merchant denied charging my credit card and denied activating the unauthorized order, Consumer contacted Comenity Bank to dispute the charge being fraudulent and unauthorized. 
Comenity Bank stated that the charge would be removed and disputed with the merchant. However, on XXXX the merchant that was under dispute re-applied the charge {$580.00} back to the card that was closed under account number XXXX. As a result, the charge was applied and transferred over to the new card under account number XXXX that was activated on XXXX unexpectedly and without my authorization. 
( Please reference Exhibit D-3 ) Under the rules of the Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ) , federal Mail, Internet, or Telephone Order Merchandise Rule applies to the following : If you cancel the order before it ships, the order must be cancelled and a full refund must be issued back to the buyer or consumer.

If theres a delay shipping your order, the seller has to tell you and give you the choice of either agreeing to the delay or canceling your order for a full refund. 

On XXXX, Consumer contacted the Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ) online website, A businesses can not send merchandise you didnt order and then charge you for it. That means you dont have to pay for goods you get and that you didnt order. 
( In this case, Consumer didnt authorize the order and when Consumer found out about the order that was apparently applied to my account. ) FTC continued to state, By extension, if you have canceled your order and the vendor acknowledged the cancellation, the same would apply ( In this circumstance, Consumer attempted to cancel the order with the merchant directly on XXXX. ) FTC further explained, You dont even have to return such merchandise, it seems, and can hold on to it as a free gift. Sometimes, sellers might send you a free gift or sample. Or a charity could send you a gift and then ask for a donation. You can keep such products and dont need to pay for them. 
By law, companies cant send unordered merchandise to you, then demand payment. That means you never have to pay for things you get but didnt order. You also dont need to return unordered merchandise. Youre legally entitled to keep it as a free gift.

Sellers can send you merchandise that is clearly marked as a gift, free sample, or the like. And, charitable organizations can send you merchandise and ask for a contribution. It's your right to keep such merchandise as a free gift.

Consumer contends that merchant XXXX is operating business through deceptive tactics and therefore, in violation of consumer rights under the Federal Trade Commission rules and/or regulatory statutes. 
XXXX admitted to the Consumer that the order DID NOT EXIST yet, email from XXXX stated that the order was processing and on XXXX charged Consumers credit card account in the amount of {$580.00}. Although XXXX claimed order # XXXX did not exist, XXXX charged Consumer {$580.00} on XXXX. Furthermore, merchant sent an email correspondence to Consumer on XXXX, at XXXX ( XXXX ) stating that order # XXXX was deemed DELAYED NOT YET SHIPPED! confirming that the order did exist. 
( Please reference Exhibit A-2 ) XXXX has a policy for consumers that if any order from XXXX HAS NOT YET SHIPPED, THE ORDER CAN BE CANCELLED UPON REQUEST BY THE CONSUMER. 
( Please reference Exhibit A-3 ) On XXXX, at approximately XXXX ( XXXX ) the Consumer responded to email sent from XXXX requesting from XXXX to cancel the order that XXXX  referred to as nonexistent order during live chat between the Consumer and merchant, XXXX. Approximately 5 hours after the live chat conversation ended, at XXXX ( XXXX ), XXXX sent the Consumer a follow up email indicating that the order was now preparing to be shipped. 
( Please reference Exhibit XXXX ) At XXXX ( XXXX  ) XXXX sent Consumer a second follow up email indicating that the order XXXX had shipped and that package will arrive tomorrow ( XXXX ). 
( Please reference Exhibit C-3, and C-4 ) At XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX  sent XXXX a third follow up XXXX showing a Final Invoice with a charge of {$580.00}. 
( Please reference Exhibit XXXX ) On XXXX, XXXX  applied charge/s to Consumers SONY VISA CREDIT CARD ACCOUNT {$580.00} XXXX XXXX, despite Consumer requesting to cancel the order with XXXX prior to package being shipped. 
( Please reference Exhibit D-3 ) As a result, Consumer filed a claim with Comenity Bank to dispute the charge/s of {$580.00} with XXXX The Comenity Bank Fraud Department Intake Representative, identified himself as XXXX, stated to Consumer that Consumers Sony Visa Card account XXXX will be closed effective immediately and that no charge/s will be able to apply to the closed account. 

On XXXX, XXXX sent XXXX a package with a follow-up email at XXXX ( XXXX ) stating that Package has arrived! 
( Please reference Exhibit XXXX ) On XXXX Comenity Bank re-applied charge of {$580.00} without explanation and/or without result finalizing dispute opened on XXXX. 

Even though, Consumer disputed the unauthorized charge/s with Comenity Bank XXXX XXXX recharged Consumers closed account {$580.00}. 

Merchant, XXXX and Comenity Bank deceived and mislead the consumer on many instances. XXXX misconduct violates Consumers Rights counteracts the fairtrade between merchant and/or consumer. Comenity Bank failed to enforce policies that govern the financial banking dispute process/es.

Counter acting Comenity Banks own policy/ies and/or business practices corollary harbors suspicion in Comenity Banks moral and ethical standards of conduct. The dissension and internecine discord not only casts doubt in the integrity of Comenity Bank but concomitantly violates Consumers Rights under the Federal Trade Commission and the rules governed by the Fair Credit Billing Act of 1974.

Company response to consumer: Closed with monetary relief