Consumer complaint received 2026-02-17 00:00:00
Product: Credit card — General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Other features, terms, or problems — Other problem
Company: FIRST INTERSTATE BANCSYSTEM, INC.
State: MN

Complaint narrative:
Regulation XXXX & XXXX Noncompliance - Failure XXXX  Investigate and Ongoing Violations This complaint concerns XXXX XXXX Banks failure XXXX  conduct a reasonable investigation, XXXX  its willful misconduct, willful negligence, reckless disregard, XXXX  willful noncompliance with Regulation XXXX  ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX handling my credit card billing dispute. 

This submission is not a duplicate of CFPB XXXX XXXX. That complaint addressed the underlying transaction. This complaint addresses the banks procedural XXXX  substantive violations during XXXX after the dispute process. 

First Interstate Bank denied a services-not-rendered dispute without identifying any evidence that the contracted service was delivered. No property was delivered, no listing launched, no revenue generated, XXXX  the merchant issued a partial refund acknowledging non-delivery. Despite this undisputed record, the bank denied the dispute and continues XXXX  charge interest. 

The bank relied on unsigned, post-payment merchant terms, refused XXXX  provide the merchants rebuttal documentation, XXXX  refused to disclose the dates the rebuttal was received, processed, or reviewed, preventing verification of compliance with Regulation XXXX. 

The bank gave the merchant approximately XXXX days to respond ( XX/XX/year> to XX/XX/year> ), while giving me fewer than XXXX  days, by physical mail only, despite knowing I was traveling and after I requested digital delivery. I have never received the alleged XX/XX/year> letter, yet the dispute was closed anyway. 

The bank now claims it can not assist because internal timelines have passed. This is legally false. Regulation Z provides no safe harbor for denying a billing error based on procedure when the investigation is unreasonable or when the underlying facts establish non-delivery. A procedurally timely denial that ratifies merchant non-performance is not compliance - it is facilitation. XXXX access XXXX  : AirDNA, marketplaces, or consultation does not constitute delivery of the promised DFY merchant services with an abundance of proof provided on the subject in detail, directly from the merchant themselves. 

Under XXXX Reason Code XXXX, the test is binary : Was the promised service delivered? Here, the answer is no. The promised service with provided proof explicitly states a XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX acquired property ; designed, furnished, & listed that profits $ XXXX $ XXXX after operational expenses. 

Token or preparatory activity can not cure total non-delivery. 
No timeline argument can cure that defect. 

First Interstate Bank continues XXXX  demonstrate willful negligence, XXXX  routinely ignores action relating XXXX  directly addressed compliance with XXXX, XXXX XXXX, proper investigation, etc. They refuse XXXX  answer compliance related questions, and continue XXXX  violate consumer chargeback rights, XXXX  are abusing their powers as a bank, due XXXX  a lack of due diligence, XXXX  repeated documented willful misconduct. 

I am requesting immediate supervisory review and administrative correction. These Regulation XXXX  and XXXX  violations persist after notice and appeal, warranting CFPB XXXX. This must be escalated XXXX  all relevant enforcement agencies.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation