Consumer complaint received 2023-11-24
Product: Credit card — General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Problem with a purchase shown on your statement — Card was charged for something you did not purchase with the card
Company: CITIBANK, N.A. (CT)

XXXX XX/XX/2023, my credit monitoring service sent me an alert - that a charge had appeared on a card I had not used in a while ( a Citibank card ending in XXXX that i had not used in a year ). I went to the account and saw a charge of {$160.00} for XXXX XXXX made on XX/XX/XXXX that was showing up on my statement. 

XXXX immediately called Citibank and reported this as fraud. The person I spoke to confirmed that I had not made the charge, nor had I authorized anyone to, and then said she was opening a dispute. I asked that my card number be changed because me card was compromised and she said something to the effect " of course, I'm surprised that didn't pop up before ''. 

XXXX went to check on this in the online dispute center a bit later, and noticed two weird things : XXXX ) I had both a purchase dispute and a fraud dispute open for the {$160.00} charge, both noted as reported by me on XXXX ; XXXX ) XXXXwo additional transactions were under the " fraud dispute '' section listed as " transaction did not post '', one by the same vendor for the same amount but attempted XXXX, and XXXX by " XXXX XXXX XXXX '' for {$170.00} on XXXX. Both were listed as being disputed by me on XXXX, which I didn't ( I wasn't even aware of them ). 

XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, I called Citibank about this. I was told that a mistake had been made on their end, and that they would work it out and I needed to " watch for the letters ''. I was also given XXXX dispute numbers as reference : Fraud dispute - XXXX Purchase dispute - XXXX -On XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX, I checked the online dispute center ( having heard nothing ) and saw that the purchase dispute was active, that the " merchant had responded '', and the fraud dispute for the {$160.00} charge was gone ( the fraud disputes for the transactions that hadn't posted were still there ). I called the fraud department to re-report ; they acknowledge that their notes confirmed that I had reported this charge as fraud, and that they would put *more* notes in. I asked that this please be confirmed with me in writing ; I was told no. I then closed my account ( I hadn't activated the card with the new number ) because I was not confident in the way they were handling this. 

XXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX, I checked the online dispute center instead. I saw a notification that I was responsible for the charge, that the conditional credit would be reversed, and saw that all the fraud disputes had been erased. I called billing disputes to relay the investigation and was told : XXXX ) Again, that their notes showed that I had reported the charge as fradulent. 
XXXX ) That the purchase dispute investigators had been corresponding with me ( they haven't, I double checked ). 
XXXX ) That again this was fine, I had to just respond to a letter that they had sent me confirming that I hadn't made the charge. 
XXXX ) That, contrary to # XXXX, she couldn't find the fraudulent charge in their records. Yikes. 

I noted that this was violating my fraud protections under the XXXX that limit my liability to {$50.00} for fraudulent charges. I again asked for written confirmation that I had reported the charge as fraud on XX/XX/XXXX, and even said check the recording to confirm. I got a noncommital answer but I was told that, again, the report of fraud was going " in the notes ''. I reiterated my request that I get written confirmation of what they were saying was in their notes. I'm not optimistic as she was noncommittal and said she didn't understand why I had gotten nothing in writing so far. 

Whether intentionally or due to incompetence, Citibank is violating my rights under the XXXX. I am liable for up to {$50.00}, not {$160.00}. 

I have attached screenshots of the dispute portal showing the fraud disputes ( now erased from the portal ) and the purchase dispute that was erroneously opened being decided in the merchant 's favor.