Consumer complaint received 2026-05-11 00:00:00
Product: Credit card — General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Problem with a purchase shown on your statement — Card was charged for something you did not purchase with the card
Company: CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION
State: UT

Complaint narrative:
On XX/XX/year>, I filed a chargeback dispute with XXXX for {$9700.00} in charges made to a social casino merchant, XXXX, XXXX. I filed a parallel dispute with Chase Bank for {$8000.00} in charges to the same merchant, based on the same evidence package documenting written misrepresentations by the merchant 's support team about platform features I relied on when making purchases. Chase Bank properly evaluated the dispute and ruled in my favor. XXXX denied the dispute, acknowledged on appeal that it had been misclassified, reclassified it, and then denied it again within the same day. The XXXX dispute was initially classified as " Goods Not Received '' and denied on XX/XX/year>. On XX/XX/year>, I called XXXX. The representative confirmed that the dispute had been misclassified and that the correct classification was " Quality of Services Received, '' because I had received the virtual currency, but the platform services were not as represented. The representative reopened the appeal and instructed me to resubmit my evidence package. I resubmitted a comprehensive multi-page appeal package the same day, explicitly framed around the Quality of Services Received standard and including a Reviewer Guidance section identifying the key analytical question. The same day, XXXX closed the appeal as final. On XX/XX/year>, I called XXXX Dispute Resolution and spoke with a representative named XXXX. She confirmed that the appeal was reviewed on the same day it was submitted. She also confirmed that the dispute reason code had been correctly updated to Quality of Services Received. When I asked XXXX to explain how the dispute could have been denied under Quality of Services Received reasoning, she stated : " When it comes to any type of like, the service wasn't smooth or there was some type of bugs or glitch or something like that... that misrepresentation that you're saying happened, that is something you have to kind of resolve directly with the merchant, because once they're fulfilling the service of the actual like game, the coins, and providing that to you, they have fulfilled it. '' This reasoning applies Goods Not Received logic that delivery of the virtual currency satisfied the merchant 's obligations to a dispute that had been reclassified under Quality of Services Received. Quality of Services Received specifically addresses circumstances where services were not delivered as represented, which is the substance of my claim and the same basis on which Chase ruled in my favor. XXXX has also reported the account to the credit bureaus as a disputed account, as stated in the XX/XX/XXXX denial letter, which creates ongoing credit reporting consequences from a dispute that I believe was not properly reviewed. Because the merchant operates without state licensure ( as confirmed by the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in correspondence included in the appeal package ), card network chargeback protections are the only consumer recourse available for this misrepresentation. XXXXXXXX XXXX handling of this dispute fails the good-faith investigation requirement under the Fair Credit Billing Act in three respects : A same-day review of a comprehensive multi-page appeal package is facially inconsistent with substantive evaluation. XXXX applied Goods Not Received reasoning to a dispute classified under Quality of Services Received, failing to apply the correct analytical framework. Chase Bank evaluated the same evidence package under the proper framework and ruled in my favor, which indicates that the merits of the dispute support reversal of the charges when properly reviewed.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation