Consumer complaint received 2026-05-19 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: TX

Complaint narrative:
During a home renovation in XXXX, I authorized my contractor to use my American Express XXXX card solely for construction materials and services. All legitimate charges appeared on my statements as payments directly to the contractor 's company. Four charges totaling {$62000.00} were made by the contractor to two entirely unrelated vendors a leather goods retailer ( {$16000.00}, XX/XX/year> ) and a home security/automation company ( {$46000.00} total, XXXX XXXX ) without my knowledge or consent. I received no goods or services from either vendor. The contractor has admitted in writing to using these vendors as alternative payment processors without informing me. When initially asked what the charges were for, he was unable to identify them. He only recently claimed to have " signed invoices '' after months of being unable to produce any documentation which I believe to be fabricated after the fact. American Express 's handling has been deficient in multiple respects : Fraud case XXXX was opened and closed on the basis that I " released my card number '' to the contractor. This is factually incorrect the contractor already held my card details from months of prior authorized transactions. I made no affirmative decision to share my details with these merchants, and the card remained in my possession at all times. Furthermore, this standard would eliminate American Express 's ability to investigate fraud by any vendor with whom a cardholder has previously conducted a legitimate transaction rendering cardholders entirely unprotected against misuse by any merchant they have ever paid. Under the Fair Credit Billing Act, unauthorized use is defined as use without actual, implied, or apparent authority. My contractor had authority for construction materials only not for charges at a leather goods store or home security company. These are unauthorized charges by legal definition regardless of whether he previously held my card number. All four charges were repeatedly rejected as disputes on the basis of a 60-day policy without any substantive human review. Disputes were auto-closed in some cases within minutes of being opened. A disputes specialist manually reopened them with instructions for human review, yet the automated system continued to override that instruction. The charges were not discoverable within 60 days as they were deliberately obscured within a high volume of authorized construction transactions. Once discovered during a routine financial review, I acted immediately and in good faith. The 60-day rule is American Express 's internal policy, not a legal requirement under the FCBA. American Express 's own fraud team directed me to consolidate a valid " goods and services not received '' dispute ( XXXX ) into the fraud case. By subsequently closing the fraud case, American Express closed a legitimate dispute without resolution through a process entirely of its own making. I have comprehensive supporting documentation including the contractor 's written admissions, full account statements showing the anomalous charge pattern, a Stripe refund confirmation that was never honored, and records showing the contractor asked me to misrepresent the charges as " unrecognized '' which I declined. I have submitted two formal written appeals by certified mail and have engaged legal counsel. I am requesting that the CFPB ensure American Express conducts a proper senior human review of all four charges on their merits, and that the fraud case closure be reconsidered on the basis that the " released card number '' premise does not constitute blanket authorization under the FCBA. Fraud case reference : XXXX. Dispute references : XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation