On or about XX/XX/XXXX, I made reservations to rent a car on XXXX for the date of XX/XX/XXXX, to be returned on XX/XX/XXXX, for a daily rate of {$32.00} and unlimited miles. ( See Exhibits 2-4 ). At the time of delivery ( pick up ), I signed a rental agreement for TIME & MILAGE for  the same price of my reservation ( {$32.00} x 4 days = {$120.00} ) with a total estimation of {$170.00} with tax. ( Exhibit 15 ). Although, the signed agreement did have a miscellaneous ( Mis. ) rate at {$.00}, that was later construed as mileage, the signed agreement is significantly different from the reservation agreement which constitutes Bait Advertising pursuant to Code of Federal Regulation ( CFR ) Part 238. 

Once I returned the rental car on XX/XX/XXXX, I was charged a mileage charge of {$.00} per mile with 600 miles included for a charge of {$560.00}, contrary to both the rental reservation agreement and the signed agreement. ( See Exhibit 16 ). Thereafter, I contacted the merchant ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) who told me to email them the reservation agreement and they will made the warranted adjustment. ( See Exhibits 1-6 ). Upon receipt of the merchants documents ( exhibits 9-10 ), ( Bank of America [ BOA ] ) concluded that no error had occurred. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, I contacted my insuring credit card company ( BOA ) who began an investigation into the Merchants deceptive practices. ( Exhibit 7 ). After a scant review by BOA, it concluded that no billing error occurred despite a billing error was not in dispute. ( Exhibit 11 ). After a telephone conversation with BOA, it requested supported document from me to begin a more thorough review. ( Exhibits 13-19 ). On XX/XX/XXXX, BOA indicate to me that it had completed its review and could only credit me {$390.00} because the merchant have the right to receive payment for any services that were rendered ; contrary to its previously completed findings. ( Exhibit 20 ). On XX/XX/XXXX,  BOA contended again that it had completed its investigation and concluded that the amount billed by XXXX was correct. ( Exhibit 22-28 ). After a telephone conversation with BOA, I submitted additional argument and documents in support of the disputed charge. ( Exhibits 29-33, 15-18 ). 

At the same time I was litigating ( disputing ) mileage charges against the shyster ( XXXX  ), where I was disputing highway toll charges simultaneously and provided additional arguments and documents simultaneous. Id. On XX/XX/XXXX, I received another decision from BOA indicating that it had re-examined my claim and arbitrarily indicated that they were unable to credit by account for the disputed amount because information was not received timely which is untrue as all information was timely submitted. ( Exhibit 34 ). Again, after a telephone call with BOA they indicated that I was unable to produce nothing ( no evidence ) that I was to be charged unlimited mileage. No time did they refer to any time guidelines which is nothing more than guise to circumvent that XXXX are engage in bogus practices. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, I resubmitted the same evidence I previously submitted refuting the bogus reservation agreement submitted by XXXX indicating to BOA that it was not the same reservation agreement I agreed to. ( Exhibit 36, 15, 17-19 ). Nevertheless, BOA ignored affirmative evidence that XXXX was covering up its bogus agreements and rental practices ( bait advertising ). On XX/XX/XXXX, I received a letter from BOA indicating that after exhausting all dispute resolutions, they are unable to issue me a credit for the disputed amount. ( Exhibit 37 ). 

Thereafter, I began to review the document in BOA message center and found documents not send to me by them from the Merchant that contradicted both its reservation and rental agreements. ( Exhibits 9-10, 38 ). I send this newly revealed information to BOA indicating that I never received this information along with the other Merchant information. Id. Based on the latter information, by XXXX own internal documentation ( rate chart ), it asserts that mileage is unlimited and make no refer to free mileage ( XXXX free miles ) or {$.00} per mile charge as purported in its bogus rental reservation. Id. 

Conclusion Based on the evidence submitted, it is clear that XXXX violated the Bait Advertising regulation that govern advertisement practices where XXXX clearly violated 16 CFR sec. 238.2 ( a ) and ( b ), initial offer provision when it created a false impression of the origin of the product offered and when the first contact ( reservation ) was secured by deception. It violated 16 CFR sec. 238.4 ( b ), also when it failed to make a refund for a sale not made in good faith. ( See Exhibits 39 and 40 ). 

The crux of my claim is that XXXX falsified the reservation agreement ( confirmation # XXXX ) to support its premise ( Exhibit 2, 10, 17, 18, 26 and 27 ). Exhibits 17-18 and 26-27 are two totally different reservations, where its purported reservation is contrary to its internal document ( Exhibit 10 ) which constitutes fraud. BOA has delete exhibits 9-10 from its message center which claim to keep for 120 days, which is evidence of its complicity of BOA together with the preponderance of evidence.