Consumer complaint received 2026-05-14 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: CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
On XX/XX/year>, I was charged {$110.00} by XXXX XXXX XXXX for prepaid API credits ( software/AI service ). I spent approximately four days attempting to integrate the API with my application. The software repeatedly failed and I was unable to make the service functional. Once I determined I could not use the service, I contacted the merchant for a refund. The merchant denied my refund request, citing a 24-hour refund window buried in Section 4.1 of their Terms of Service. This 24-hour window was NOT disclosed at point of sale. The purchase confirmation screen displays only the total charge, payment method, and a " Purchase '' button. There is no mention of any refund policy, time limit, or limitation anywhere in the checkout flow. The merchant 's own support team admitted in writing that this policy " was not obvious. '' I contacted merchant support twice and was denied refund both times. I filed a dispute with Capital One under " services not as described. '' It was denied. I requested re-review with seven pieces of new evidence, including : Screenshots of the purchase flow showing no refund disclosure Screenshots of the Terms of Service showing where the 24-hour clause is buried Email from the merchant 's support team admitting the policy " was not obvious '' Documentation of two separate refund denials Capital One reopened the case on XX/XX/year> and closed it the same day, citing " a valid merchant response. '' The merchant 's response claimed " goods were as described and received in good condition, '' which mischaracterizes the dispute. This is software I could not make functional, not physical goods received in good condition. When I called to discuss the closure, a supervisor told me Capital One was required to enforce the merchant 's refund policy. This is not consistent with XXXX chargeback rules, which provide cardholder dispute rights independent of merchant refund policies. My concerns : Capital One did not meaningfully review the evidence on reopening. Same-day closure of a reopened case with seven documents is not substantive review. Capital One incorrectly deferred to the merchant 's refund policy rather than evaluating the dispute under XXXX chargeback rules for services not as described. Capital One did not address the core issue : a material payment term ( 24-hour refund window ) was not disclosed at point of sale, which the merchant has acknowledged in writing. The merchant 's defense ( " goods as described '' ) does not apply to a software product the customer could not make functional. Additional concern regarding Capital One 's dispute process : Capital One 's dispute update letter dated XX/XX/year> lists the following types of " supporting documentation '' they accept : Sales invoice showing how the service is different than received Number of times the merchant tried correcting the problem Date of canceled services or returned merchandise/installed parts Date merchandise was made available for pick-up Refund voucher or other documentation None of these document types apply to a software/API product. There is no merchandise to return, no installed parts, no pickup date, and no refund voucher concept for prepaid API credits. Capital One 's documentation requirements appear to be designed exclusively for physical goods disputes, leaving cardholders disputing software, digital services, or API products without any clear path to provide accepted evidence. When I could not provide documents that do not exist for this product type, Capital One defaulted to the merchant 's refund policy as the basis for denial. This effectively means that cardholders disputing digital service purchases can not win disputes through Capital One 's current process regardless of the merits of their claim. I am requesting the CFPB review Capital One 's dispute documentation requirements to ensure they accommodate disputes involving software, API services, XXXX subscriptions, and other non-physical products. To summarize the core issue : XXXX 's rebuttal to Capital One claims their refund policy was " clearly outlined and accessible at the time of checkout '' and that " terms and conditions of our policy were presented to the customer prior to completing the transaction. '' This claim is directly contradicted by the merchant 's own purchase flow ( see attached screenshots ) and by their own support team 's written admission that the policy " was not obvious. '' Capital One accepted the merchant 's claim without verifying it against the evidence I submitted.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation