Consumer complaint received 2025-10-09 00:00:00
Product: Payday loan, title loan, personal loan, or advance loan — Installment loan
Issue: Charged fees or interest you didn't expect — 
Company: Affirm Holdings, Inc
State: LA

Complaint narrative:
On XX/XX/year>, I purchased a XXXX XXXX XXXX controller through XXXX and financed the transaction using Affirm. On XX/XX/XXXX, I initiated a return directly through XXXX website. XXXX  own confirmation email clearly stated that the item must be dropped off by XX/XX/XXXX and that a full refund of {$1700.00} would be issued once processed. 

I dropped the package at XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX, using XXXX  XXXX XXXX from their official system, and XXXX tracking shows it was delivered and accepted by XXXX XXXX return center on XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX then issued a refund but deducted {$310.00} labeled as a damage fee. The same page in my XXXX account shows the refund fully credited on XX/XX/XXXX, which is categorical proof that the item was processed and not rejected. 

When I contacted XXXX, I was given three contradictory explanations for the deduction : ( 1 ) a restocking fee, ( 2 ) the item was not in original condition, and ( 3 ) the return was late. 
None of these are supported by their own written policies. XXXX return policy explicitly states that late or damaged returns are rejected and returned to the customer ; not accepted, processed, and partially refunded. Since XXXX accepted and credited the return, they effectively acknowledged it met all conditions for a full refund. 

I repeatedly asked for documentation of the alleged damage, timestamps showing a missed deadline, or the policy clause authorizing a partial refund. No proof was provided. When I requested escalation to a supervisor, the representative terminated the call and closed my case without any written explanation. 

I then filed a billing-error dispute with Affirm under Regulation Z ( 12 CFR 1026.13 ), which legally requires a good-faith investigation and a written explanation of the creditors findings. Instead, Affirm closed the dispute in favor of XXXX without providing any evidence or written analysis, simply stating that the merchant followed its policy. This is non-compliant with 1026.13 ( c ) ( 3 ), which obligates the creditor to investigate and transmit documentation from the merchant to the consumer. 

The facts are clear : The return was initiated within the valid window ( XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ). 
The QR-coded XXXX label remained valid and was scanned successfully, XXXX system would have rejected it if expired. 
XXXX accepted the package and refunded most of the amount, contradicting their own claim of lateness or damage. 
No written or photographic proof of damage exists. 
Both companies failed to provide a transparent record trail or escalation path.

This conduct reflects bad-faith handling by both XXXX and Affirm. XXXX  contradictory reasoning, lack of evidence, and refusal to escalate show disregard for its own customer-protection policies. Affirm compounded the issue by ignoring federal billing-error regulations and closing the case based on hearsay rather than documentation. 

Affirms failure to obtain or review supporting documentation from the merchant before denying my claim violates Regulation Z 1026.13 ( f ), which requires a good-faith investigation and a written explanation based on verified evidence I request that the CFPB require Affirm to reopen this case as a bona fide billing-error dispute, compel XXXX to produce evidence substantiating the deduction or refund the {$310.00}, and ensure both entities are reminded of their obligations under Regulation Z and the Fair Credit Billing Act. I am providing all relevant documentation : XXXX refund confirmation, XXXX proof of delivery, return emails, and screenshots as supporting evidence.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation