Consumer complaint received 2026-06-09 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: CITIBANK, N.A.
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
I am filing this complaint against Citibank regarding their mishandling of chargeback dispute Case ID XXXX ( {$1000.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX ). I am a XXXX resident and Citi XXXX XXXX cardmember since XXXX ( card ending in XXXX ). CORE COMPLAINT SUMMARY : Citi has denied my legitimate chargeback dispute through a combination of contradictory denial reasons and the application of an internal XXXX policy that conflicts with XXXX XXXX own network dispute rules, which provide broader consumer protections that Citi as XXXX XXXX issuer is contractually bound to honor. FACTS : 1. MERCHANT MISREPRESENTATION : On XX/XX/XXXX, I was charged {$1000.00} by XXXX XXXX XXXX as a down payment for a vacation membership. The merchant verbally promised vacation weeks at {$290.00} per week at the point of sale. Upon attempting my first booking, actual member rates were {$2000.00} $ XXXX per week a XXXX price misrepresentation. I have never used any membership benefit. 2. DISPUTE FILED WITHIN APPLICABLE WINDOW : I filed a chargeback dispute with Citi on XX/XX/XXXX. The transaction date was XX/XX/XXXX ( XXXX days prior ). Critically, I only discovered the misrepresentation when I attempted my first booking in XXXX XXXX. Under XXXX XXXX dispute rules, the timeframe runs from the date the consumer discovers the problem not solely from the transaction date. My dispute was filed promptly upon discovery. XXXX. XXXX CONTRADICTORY DENIALS ON THE SAME CASE : XX/XX/XXXX denial : 'The services or merchandise were provided ' a merits-based denial. XX/XX/XXXX denial : 'We were not contacted in a timely manner ' a procedural denial. These XXXX reasons are mutually contradictory. Citi can not have reviewed the merits on XX/XX/XXXX and simultaneously claim on XX/XX/XXXX that they were never contacted in time. Furthermore, Citi itself re-opened the case between these XXXX dates and solicited my evidence then closed the case again XXXX days later without adequate review. 4. CITI 'S XXXX INTERNAL POLICY CONFLICTS WITH XXXX NETWORK RULES : When I called Citi to challenge the timeliness denial, a representative verbally cited a XXXX internal policy as the basis for the denial. XXXXXXXX XXXX own network dispute rules provide consumers with broader protections, including the ability to dispute from the date of discovery of a problem not solely from the transaction date. Citi as a XXXX issuer is bound by XXXXXXXX XXXX network rules and can not apply a more restrictive internal policy that strips consumers of protections XXXXXXXX XXXX rules provide. 5. REGULATORY RECORD : FTC Report No. XXXX filed against the merchant ( XX/XX/XXXX ) California Attorney General complaint filed against the merchant ( XX/XX/XXXX ) California Consumer Legal Remedies Act demand letter served on merchant ( XX/XX/XXXX ).

Company public response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief