On XX/XX/XXXX, I filed a credit card dispute case ( XXXXwhich is now closed ) with Fifth Third Bank involving thirteen ( 13 ) transactions. The amount of each of these transactions was directed to the same merchant and was for the same one of two purposes. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, Fifth Third Bank reversed the five younger transactions of the 13-unit transaction grouping comprising the dispute case even though four out of those five transactions were beyond their individual 60-day notification windows. 

Fifth Third Bank refused to reverse the eight older transactions of the 13-unit transaction grouping comprising the dispute case by declaring that these eight transactions were beyond their individual 60-day notification windows. 

After being informed of Fifth Third Banks decision regarding my dispute case, I filed an initial complaint against Fifth Third Bank with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( now closed case number XXXX ) in which I vividly detailedwith applicable supportive documentationthat since Fifth Third Bank had reversed four out of five transactions that were beyond their individual 60-day notification windows, there was no logical reason for the remaining eight transactions to not have been reversed at the same time that the reversal of the five transactions that Fifth Third Bank did reverse took place. 

In summary, my initial CFPB complaint against Fifth Third Bank was to declare and prove that my dispute case had been handled in a nonsensical, unfair manner because within the same grouping of transactions, denial-reason rules were disengaged for five of the transactions and then reengaged for the remaining eight transactions. Which, in my mind, paints a very clear picture of unfairness.

Fifth Third Banks response to the initial CFPB complaint was to inform me that the 60-day-notification rule did not apply to the transactions I had disputed because they were considered merchant disputes. I was also informed that Fifth Third Bank reversed five of the thirteen transactions because they determined that they had chargeback rights for those transactions and that they did not reverse the remaining eight transactions because they determined that they did not have chargeback rights for those transactions.

In summary, Fifth Third Bank did not addresslet alone even endeavor to rectifythe unfair handling of my dispute case that was presented to them in the initial CFPB complaint. All Fifth Third Bank did was change denial-reason terminology and transition my account into a cease and desist status for whatever that happens to mean to Fifth Third Bank.

To this day, Fifth Third Bank still refuses to admit that they did not look at all thirteen transactions in the dispute case in the same lightso to speak. Fifth Third Bank also still refuses to admit treating five of the transactions in one way while treating eight transactions in a different way. Which, again in my mind, paints a very clear picture of unfairness.

Pursuant to Fifth Third Banks response to the initial CFPB complaint, I filed a complaint against Fifth  Third Bank with the Federal Trade Commission. My reference number in that regard is XXXX. The FTC is in complete agreement with me that Fifth Third Bank handled my dispute case in a nonsensical, unfair manner. 

Details and evidence that prove that Fifth Third Bank handled my dispute case in a nonsensical and unfair manner is documented below. 

Attachment XXXX provides a listing of all thirteen ( 13 ) transactions involved in the dispute case. 

Of note here, and also noted in the attachment itself, are six elements that pertain to this grouping of transactions. 

1. All of the transactions were disputed on the same dateXX/XX/XXXXwhich groups all of the transactions into a single standalone dispute case. 

2. The amount of each transaction was directed to the same merchant.

3. All of the transactions were payments for the same one of two purposes.

4. The transactions having a {$19.00} amount were each for the paying of a monthly membership fee.

5. The transactions having a {$180.00} amount and a {$1200.00} amount were all payments for the purchasing of the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX component of the merchant enterprise which is owned and controlled entirely by the merchant. 

6. The transaction having a {$1400.00} amount is also a payment for the purchasing of the XXXX XXXX   XXXX XXXX component of the merchant enterprise which is owned and controlled entirely by the merchant. The description and amount for this particular transaction is different from the other XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX transactions because the initial purchase of the component has to go through the merchants help desk whichin turngives the transaction a different description and a higher amount from the other XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX transactions. Additionally, the higher amount is due to the inclusion of an initial set-up fee. 

Also of note here is that Fifth Third Bank declared that the 60-day notification rule did not apply to any of these transactions because they were considered to be merchant disputes.

Attachment XXXX provides a listing of the five ( 5 ) younger transactions of the dispute case which Fifth Third Bank reversed on XXXX. 

Of note here, and also noted in the attachment itself, are three elements that pertain to this grouping of transactions. 

1. All of these transactions were reversed by the company on XXXX. 

2. The first four transactionsfrom top to bottomwere reversed even though they were beyond their individual 60-day notification windows. 

3. Fifth Third Bank reversed these transactions because they declared that they had chargeback rights for these transactions even though four out of the five transactions were beyond their individual 60-day notification windows. 

Attachment XXXX provides a listing of the eight ( 8 ) older transactions of the dispute case which Fifth Third Bank reused to reverse on XXXX. 

Of note here, and also noted in the attachment itself, are six elements that pertain to this grouping of transactions. 

1. All of these transactions are beyond their individual 60-day notification windows.

2. Fifth Third Bank declared that they did not have chargeback rights for any of these transactions and therefore refused to reverse any of these transactions.

3. The XX/XX/XXXX and the XX/XX/XXXX transactions are no different from the XX/XX/XXXX transaction on Attachment XXXX. Since Fifth Third Bank declared that they had chargeback rights for the XX/XX/XXXX transaction on Attachment XXXX, there is no logical reason for Fifth Third Bank to declare that they did not have chargeback rights for the XX/XX/XXXX and the XX/XX/XXXX transactions. 

4. The XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and the XX/XX/XXXX transactions are no different from the XX/XX/XXXX transaction on Attachment XXXX. Since Fifth Third Bank declared that they had chargeback rights for the XX/XX/XXXX transaction on Attachment XXXX, there is no logical reason for Fifth Third Bank to declare that they did not have chargeback rights for the XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and the XX/XX/XXXX transactions. 

5. Although the XX/XX/XXXX transaction has a different description and a different amountwhich is explained on Attachment XXXXthe XX/XX/XXXX transaction is still no different from the XX/XX/XXXX transaction on Attachment XXXX because it is part of the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX component as is described on Attachment XXXX. Since Fifth Third Bank declared that they had chargeback rights for the XX/XX/XXXX transaction on Attachment XXXX, there is no logical reason for Fifth Third Bank to declare that they did not have chargeback rights for the XX/XX/XXXX transaction. 

6. Since the transaction description of the XX/XX/XXXX transaction is not among the transaction descriptions of the transactions that were reversed by Fifth Third Bank ( see Attachment XXXX ), Fifth Third Bank can confirm that the transaction description of the XX/XX/XXXX transaction is directly linked to the merchant by reading paragraph 16 of the Federal Trade Commissions complaint document against the merchant, which can be accessed using the following hyperlink : XXXX XXXX XXXX The MASTER sheet of Attachment XXXX presents all thirteen ( 13 ) transactions in the dispute case in chronological order based on transaction date from oldest to youngest. 

Of note here are five elements. 

1. Fifth Third Bank declared that none of the transactions could be denied due to their individual 60-day notification window dates have been exceeded because the transactions are considered to be disputes with a merchant.

2. Fifth Third Bank declared that they determined that they had chargeback rights for the five younger transactions ( rows 15 through 19 ) and therefore reversed those transactions on XXXX. 

3. Fifth Third Bank declared that they determined that they did not have chargeback rights for the eight older transactions ( rows 7 through 14 ) and therefore refused to take any reversing action for these transactions. 

4. The two different purchase purposes that constitute the entire dispute case are represented in the five younger transactions ( rows 15 through 19 ) that Fifth Third Bank determined that they had chargeback rights for and therefore reversed. 

5. The two different purchase purposes that constitute the entire dispute case are also represented in the eight older transactions ( rows 7 through 14 ) that Fifth Third Bank determined that they did not have chargeback rights for and therefore refused to take any reversing action. 

An analysis of these five elements produces a very intriguing question : Since the two different purchase purposes that constitute the entire dispute case are represented in both the five younger transactions and the eight older transactions, what science, algorithm, or logarithm gave Fifth Third Bank cause to determine that they had chargeback rights for the five younger transactions but did not have chargeback rights for the eight older transactions? 

A purely mathematical analysis of the MASTER sheet of Attachment XXXX produces a plausiblealbeit unfairtheory as to what influenced Fifth Third Bank to determine the transactions for which they had chargeback rights and the transactions for which they did not have chargeback rights. This theory is explained in the following seven steps. 

1. Fifth Third Bank began the chargeback rights determination process by establishing a maximum reversal amount of {$1500.00}. 

2. The transaction on row 19 was reversed. This brought the total thus-far amount reversed to {$19.00}.

3. The transaction on row 18 was reversed. This brought the total thus-far amount reversed to {$200.00}.

4. The transaction on row 17 was reversed. This brought the total thus-far amount reversed to {$220.00}.

5. The transaction on row 16 was reversed. This brought the total thus-far amount reversed to {$1400.00}.

6. The transaction on row 15 was reversed. This brought the total thus-far amount reversed to {$1400.00}.

7. They stopped the reversal process at this point. For, if the transaction on row 14 had been reversed,  its amount of {$1200.00} would have increased the total thus-far amount reversed to {$2.00} XXXX, which is {$1200.00} above the {$1500.00} maximum reversal amount established at the very beginning of the process. 

At this point in time, I am not accusing Fifth Third Bank of having engaged in such visibly obvious unfair reversal theory scheme. However, from a mathematical point of view, this seven-step theory does harmonize with the transaction-reversing actions that Fifth Third Band did and did not take. 

Regarding the MEMBERSHIP PAYMENTS sheet of Attachment XXXX, Fifth Third Bank declared that they had chargeback rights for the transactions on rows 9 through 11 but did not have chargeback rights for the transactions on rows 7 and 8. 

When these five transactions are viewed as a collective whole, it produces a very intriguing question : With the exception of date differences and a singular difference in the Merchant column, what makes the non-reversed transactions on rows 7 and 8 different from the reversed transactions on rows 9 through 11? 

Regarding the XXXX sheet of Attachment XXXX, Fifth Third Bank declared that they had chargeback rights for the transactions on rows 13 and 14 but did not have chargeback rights for the transactions on rows 7 through 12.

When these eight transactions are viewed as a collective whole, it produces a very intriguing question : With the exception of date differences, a singular difference in the Merchant column, and two transaction amount differences, what makes the non-reversed transactions on rows 7 through 12 different from the reversed transactions on rows 13 and 14? 

All of the evidence documented above along with the materials in this complaints four attachments paint an undeniably clear picture that Fifth Third Bank and its dispute center mishandled my dispute case in ways that are nonsensical and unfair.

When one transaction is reversed for whatever reason and a second transaction that is identical in purpose to the first transaction is not reversed for whatever reason, that deed creates an act that not only makes no logical sense at all but is also unfair because each transaction in the 13-transaction dispute case should have been handled in the same way. 

Additionally, the Bureau of Consumer Protection division of The Federal Trade Commission is in complete agreement with me that my dispute case was mishandled in ways that are nonsensical and unfair and also feels that Fifth Third Bank shouldof its own accordstrive to rectify and remedy such a visibly obvious case of nonsensical and unfair acts without further delay and without further complaints having to be filed against them. 

Most plentiful on XXXX and other social media platforms are posts and stories speaking of how Fifth Third Bank is not following the same dispute resolution rules that all other MasterCard and Visa backed credit card issuers are having to follow and how Fifth Third  Bank is making up their own dispute resolution rules as they go alongso to speakto deny perfectly valid and well-documented dispute cases. 

Also most plentiful on XXXX and other social media platforms are posts and stores speaking of how Fifth Third Bank is demonstrating that they had rather continue tormenting and traumatizing the victims of a worldwide court-case-proven bilking scheme while other credit card issuerssuch as XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX  XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX just to name a fewhave elected to demonstrate compassion, understanding, and caring kindness to the victims of the bilking scheme who have already been tormented and traumatized enough as it is. 

I usually do not put much stock in the posts and stories I encounter on XXXX and other social media platforms. However, considering how my dispute case was handled by Fifth Third Banks dispute center, I am now inclined to feel that the plentiful posts and stories I have read regarding how Fifth Third Bank has chosen to conduct its credit-card-issuers affairs are not without certain amounts of merit and truthfulness. 

With respect to what you have just read and coming from someone who has spent the better part of 20 years as a XXXX XXXX in the regular 8-to-5 business world, it is my well-educated opinion and belief that it would be of more benefit to Fifth Third Bank for them to commence devoting significantly less time endeavoring to deny perfectly valid and well-documented dispute cases in favor of devoting significantly more time in the arenas of damage control and public relations so as to avoid the potential loss of present and future banking customers, the potential loss of present and future business-entity investors, the potential loss of present and future credit-card holders, and also to prevent legal action against Fifth Third Bank itself from making the transition from probable to imminent. 

Fifth Third Bank proclaimed me to be a valued customer. However, considering how my dispute case was handled and how my account has since been placed in some variety of cease and desist status, the picture I see is more of a loathed customer than a valued customer. But, then again, Fifth Third Bank may be using a different dictionary than myself. 

In closing, let me state that I am not a malicious and greedy person. I am only seeking for myself and my dispute case to be treated fairly.