Consumer complaint received 2026-04-28 00:00:00
Product: Credit card — General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Problem with a purchase shown on your statement — Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement
Company: Apple Financing LLC
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
I am submitting this complaint regarding the handling of an XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX claim administered by XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ). This complaint concerns both the basis for denial of my claim and the manner in which my attempts to seek reconsideration and escalation were handled. Timeline of Events : - XX/XX/XXXX : My XXXX was stolen. At the time of the theft, the device was actively being tracked using XXXX XXXX XXXX feature. I have evidence showing the device location after the theft, which would not have been possible if the feature had not been enabled. - Initial Claim Submission : I filed a claim under my XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. - Claim Denial : The claim was denied on the basis that Find My XXXX was not enabled. However, this conclusion appears to rely on a system timestamp indicating when the feature was later disabled, rather than whether it was active at the time of the theft. - XX/XX/XXXX : I submitted a detailed written request for reconsideration, including supporting documentation and an explanation of the circumstances. This included clarification regarding the XXXX XXXX XXXX and the timeline of events. - Subsequent Communications ( XXXX XXXX ) : Despite my submission, I received repeated responses from the assigned adjuster that were identical in substance and did not address the specific evidence or explanation I provided. My requests for escalation to a supervisor or higher-level review were not acknowledged or acted upon. - During this period, I made multiple attempts to have the matter escalated, but I continued to receive the same template denial response without any indication that my documentation had been meaningfully reviewed. - Complaint Escalation Attempts : I escalated the matter through consumer channels and continued requesting review, but the responses remained unchanged and did not engage with the substance of my claim. Core Issues : 1. Misinterpretation of Evidence The denial appears to be based on a later timestamp when XXXX XXXX XXXX was disabled, rather than whether it was active at the time of theft. The fact that I was able to track the device after the theft demonstrates that the feature was enabled at the relevant time. 2. Failure to Conduct Meaningful Review My reconsideration request and supporting documentation were not substantively addressed. Instead, I received repeated, identical responses that did not engage with the evidence submitted. 3. Failure to Escalate Upon Request Despite multiple requests for escalation, the matter was not elevated to a supervisor or higher-level review. The adjuster continued to respond with the same denial language without addressing my concerns. 4. Lack of Good Faith Handling The pattern of repeated template responses, lack of engagement with submitted evidence, and failure to escalate raises concerns about whether the claim was handled in good faith. Requested Resolution : I am requesting that this claim be reviewed at a higher level, with full consideration of the evidence demonstrating that XXXX XXXX XXXX was active at the time of theft, and that my prior submissions be properly evaluated. Additionally, I request confirmation that escalation procedures are being followed appropriately in cases where a claimant disputes the basis of denial and provides supporting documentation. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation