Consumer complaint received 2026-07-03 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: WELLS FARGO & COMPANY
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
Wells Fargo has now failed twice to lawfully resolve a documented billing-error dispute, and its second failure was to refuse to read the dispute at all. On XX/XX/2026, {$570.00} was charged to my Wells Fargo credit card for a phone sold on XXXX ( Order ID XXXX ; descriptor " XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX '' ). The order page guaranteed the order was " Eligible for returns and refunds, within the designated order protection period. '' The delivered device is a XXXX variant that can not place calls, send XXXX, or use data on any U.S. network XXXX Within the return window I opened a return under the merchant 's own category " Item defective or doesn't work, '' selected a XXXX return method ( accepting even a paid {$7.00} drop-off ), and stood ready to ship the item back. The platform 's own system computed an " Estimated refund amount : {$660.00}. '' The merchant then blocked the return demanding an un-filmable " video, '' falsely claiming my photo " did not correspond to the item, '' and denying for unspecified " evidence standards. '' I filed a billing-error dispute under 15 U.S.C. 1666 with full documentation. Wells Fargo issued a provisional credit, then on XX/XX/2026 reversed it ( " XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, '' {$570.00} ) without delivering the written explanation required by 12 C.F.R. 1026.13 ( f ) ( 1 ). On XX/XX/2026 I submitted a supplemental statement adding XXXX new exhibits and formally requesting, under 1026.13 ( f ) ( 2 ), the written explanation and all documentary evidence relied upon. Wells Fargo 's automated complaint system rejected that submission as a purported " duplicate '' and closed it without substantive review. A supplemented submission with new exhibits and a specific XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX request is not a duplicate. Rejecting it by automated classifier, without human review, is not the " reasonable investigation '' XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX requires. Under the CFPB 's Official Interpretation of XXXX, a creditor that fails to deliver the required written explanation or otherwise fails to comply with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX generally must credit the disputed amount. The XXXX order is now marked " XXXX due to security reasons, '' consistent with a network dispute having been initiated. If Wells Fargo reversed my credit, a valid merchant re-presentment rebutting my documentary evidence must exist. I demand it. Requested resolution : ( XXXX ) reinstate the {$570.00} credit ; ( XXXX ) deliver the XXXX ( f ) ( XXXX ) written explanation ; ( XXXX ) furnish all evidence relied upon, including the complete merchant re-presentment and network dispute records ( reason code, status, outcome ) ; ( XXXX ) human review stop auto-classifying supplemented disputes as duplicates. The full renewed dispute package ( XXXX pages, Exhibits XXXX ) is attached. The device remains in original condition and will be returned upon receipt of a prepaid label.

Company public response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation