Consumer complaint received 2025-09-24 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: AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
On XX/XX/year>, I was charged {$330.00} by XXXX XXXX XXXX for merchandise never received. I properly disputed this charge under the Fair Credit Billing Act on XX/XX/year> ( Reference XXXX ). TIMELINE OF SYSTEMATIC AMEX VIOLATIONS : First rebilling : AMEX initially rebilled based on insufficient XXXX  tracking that fails federal delivery standards XX/XX/year> : I submitted comprehensive legal documentation proving merchant 's categorical burden failure, including supplemental brief addressing additional legal issues Second rebilling : XX/XX/year> - AMEX rebilled AGAIN using the exact same insufficient tracking evidence already legally refuted, with NO NEW MERCHANT DOCUMENTATION WHATSOEVER COMPREHENSIVE LEGAL DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED : My submissions included eight total documents providing complete legal analysis : Legal brief establishing merchant 's burden of proof failure under 12 CFR 1026.13 ( a ) ( 3 ) Evidence proving  XXXX  tracking fails to establish delivery " to the consumer or designee as agreed '' Supporting documentation citing specific FCBA requirements and regulatory violations Chat transcripts documenting supervisor misconduct AMEX PROCEDURAL VIOLATIONS - SYSTEMATIC BAD FAITH : Despite comprehensive legal submissions proving merchant burden failure, American Express has : FIRST REBILLING - Initially rebilled based on insufficient XXXX  tracking IGNORED LEGAL DOCUMENTATION - Failed to address comprehensive legal brief and supplemental submissions SECOND REBILLING - Rebilled AGAIN on XX/XX/year>, using identical insufficient tracking evidence previously refuted, demonstrating complete institutional disregard for legal documentation VIOLATED 12 CFR 1026.13 ( c ) ( 2 ) - Failed reasonable investigation requirements by not reviewing provided legal documentation VIOLATED 12 CFR 1026.13 ( f ) ( 3 ) - Rebilled without determining goods were 'actually delivered, mailed, or sent as agreed ' SUPERVISOR-LEVEL MISCONDUCT : On XX/XX/year>, AMEX XXXX  " XXXX '' systematically violated escalation procedures by : Refusing to review comprehensive XX/XX/XXXX legal submission Falsely claiming AMEX has " limited options '' for investigating disputes ( contradicts FCBA authority ) Repeatedly pressuring consumer to " redispute '' instead of resolving based on existing evidence Refusing executive escalation when directly requested Refusing to provide employee ID for accountability MERCHANT 'S ABSOLUTE BURDEN FAILURE : XXXX XXXX XXXX provided only XXXX tracking showing address delivery but zero proof I personally received merchandise. This categorically fails the federal standard requiring proof of delivery " to the consumer or designee as agreed '' under 12 CFR 1026.13 ( a ) ( 3 ). EGREGIOUS SECOND REBILLING : The XX/XX/year> rebilling using THE EXACT SAME REFUTED XXXX  tracking evidence ( with NO NEW MERCHANT DOCUMENTATION WHATSOEVER ) demonstrates AMEX 's complete failure to conduct reasonable investigation. They rebilled using identical evidence I had already comprehensively refuted, showing institutional disregard for legal documentation and regulatory requirements. REGULATORY PRESSURE RESPONSE : After filing the improperly closed complaint XXXX, AMEX immediately reopened the dispute, demonstrating they were aware of regulatory scrutiny but had previously failed to conduct proper investigation. They also attempted to call me at my phone number on file, despite having explicitly requested all correspondence in writing. PATTERN OF INSTITUTIONAL FAILURE : This mirrors procedural violations in a recent separate dispute where multiple AMEX agents failed to review provided documentation, requiring executive intervention for resolution. The merchant 's burden of proof failure is absolute and documented. AMEX 's refusal to review comprehensive legal evidence while rebilling improperly TWICE, combined with supervisor-level refusal to escalate documented FCBA violations , constitutes systematic violation of Fair Credit Billing Act investigation requirements.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation