Consumer complaint received 2026-06-15 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: BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
State: NY

Complaint narrative:
o whom it may concern, I am writing to dispute the Claim ID XXXX for {$53.00} opened on XX/XX/year>. The merchandise received is different from the merchant 's description and is defective/unfit for its intended purpose. Summary of Misrepresentation : The merchants website advertises this " XXXX XXXX '' using images that depict a roll of flexible tape. Based on these professional images, a consumer reasonably expects a product with the properties of tapespecifically flexibility and adhesion. However, the product received is functionally useless : The product page for the " XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX '' presents a fundamental conflict between its marketing title and technical specifications. While the title prominently uses the word " Metallic, '' which implies a high-sheen, reflective, and brilliant finish, the body text contradicts this by describing a " soft satin finish. '' In the context of professional cake decorating, these terms represent two entirely different aesthetic tiers. A bank claim can be supported by the argumen t of Material Misrepresentation, as the merchant used a high-value descriptive keyword to trigger a sale while delivering a product that lacks the primary light-reflective properties promised in the heading. Furthermore, there is a significant discrepancy regarding the product 's structural performance. The primary marketing photograph depicts the ribbon as a rigid or semi-rigid material capable of holding sharp, upright loops and architectural folds on a cake. Conversely, the description labels the material as " soft and flexible '' edible lace. Physics dictates that a soft, lace-like material can not maintain the structural integrity shown in the photo without internal support, which is not mentioned. This constitutes Deceptive Visual Advertising, as the consumer is induced to purchase based on a " structural '' use case that the actual physical material is incapable of performing. The listing further fails the consumer by utilizing subjective terminology in place of technical dimensions. By labeling the ribbon as " Wide '' without providing specific measurements in inches or millimeters, the merchant creates a " dimensional ambiguity '' that makes it impossible for a professional to determine if the item is fit for their specific project. In banking disputes, this is categorized as a Failure of Disclosure. Without exact specifications, the term " Wide '' is a subjective claim rather than a factual description, leading to a purchase of an item that may not meet the necessary physical requirements for the intended application. Transparency regarding safety is also a major fault, as the page lacks a visible ingredient list or allergy warning. For an edible product, particularly one using XXXX and metallic pigments, which often contain iron oxides or specific dyes ( like XXXX XXXX ), the omission of this data is a critical safety gap. The bank 's argument for Non-Disclosure of Essential Safety Information is highly effective here ; a consumer can not be expected to accept an " edible '' product if they can not verify its contents against dietary restrictions or legal food safety standards prior to the transaction. Finally, the merchant employs a restrictive " No Returns '' policy for food items, which conflicts with their categorization of the item as " Equipment and Supplies. '' This creates a " Liability Shield '' where the merchant avoids accountability for the products failure to perform, like the equipment shown in the photos. A bank claim can argue that this is an Unfair Trade Practice, as the merchant is using the " food '' classification to bypass consumer protection rights when the product fails to meet the " professional grade '' quality standards they advertised. By proving the product is materially different from its description, the merchants " No Return '' policy becomes legally unenforceable in a dispute. 1. Misleading " Metallic '' Representation The primary selling point is the " Metallic '' finish, but the merchant includes a contradictory fine-print disclaimer. The XXXX : The product name explicitly uses the word " Metallic, '' yet the description admits it is " not as metallic '' as their other products and compares it to a " soft satin ''. This is a bait-and-switch tactic where the title promises a high-shine finish that the merchant knows the product can not achieve. My argument : " The merchant 's own documentation admits the product does not meet the standard defined by its own title. This is deceptive advertising. '' 2. Unfair " No Returns '' Policy for Defective Goods XXXX XXXX XXXX typically refuses returns on edible items regardless of quality. The XXXX : Consumer protection laws generally state that a " No Returns '' policy can not apply to items that are defective or misrepresented. My argument : " I attempted a good-faith resolution, but the merchant used a blanket 'all sales final ' policy to avoid responsibility for a misrepresented and defective product. '' 3. The " Fit for Purpose '' Failure ( Technical Performance ) The product is marketed as a professional cake decorating tool. However, " Metallic '' food products often require specific chemical compositions to hold their shine. The XXXX : If the ribbon arrives brittle, cracks when bent, or the " metallic '' pigment rubs off on your hands or the cake frosting, it is technically defective. My argument : " The product is advertised for professional cake application, but its physical properties ( brittleness/pigment transfer ) make it impossible to apply to a curved surface without failure. Under Uniform Commercial Code ( UCC ) guidelines, the product fails the 'implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. ' '' 4. Discrepancy Between Promotional Photos and Reality The photos on the XXXX XXXX XXXX website show a flawless, high-gloss finish. The XXXX : Most bank dispute departments look for a " What I Ordered vs. What I Got '' comparison. If the ribbon looks like matte plastic or dark grey rather than " XXXX XXXX, '' I should claim Visual Misrepresentation. My argument : " The merchants marketing materials use edited or enhanced photography to depict a high-gloss metallic finish that is physically impossible to achieve with the actual product provided. This constitutes a material misrepresentation of the goods. '' XXXX. Violation of the " Implied Warranty of Merchantability. '' Under the Uniform Commercial Code ( UCC ), goods sold by a merchant must be " merchantable, '' meaning they must pass without objection in the trade under the contract description. The XXXX : A professional-grade edible ribbon that contains recurring glued seams every 30 inches is not " standard '' for high-end cake design, where a seamless appearance is the core requirement. My argument : " The product is commercially defective for its advertised purpose. In the cake decorating trade, a ribbon with visible seams every few feet is considered a 'second ' or defective item, yet it was sold at a premium price without prominent disclosure of these defects ''. 6. Violation of the " Implied Warranty of Merchantability '' Under the Uniform Commercial Code ( UCC ), goods sold by a merchant must be " merchantable, '' meaning they must pass without objection in the trade under the contract description. The XXXX : A professional-grade edible ribbon that contains recurring glued seams every 30 inches is not " standard '' for high-end cake design, where a seamless appearance is the core requirement. My argument : " The product is commercially defective for its advertised purpose. In the cake decorating trade, a ribbon with visible seams every few feet is considered a 'second ' or defective item, yet it was sold at a premium price without prominent disclosure of these defects ''. 7. " Bait and Switch '' on Material Quality The XXXX : The product is titled " Metallic XXXX Wide, '' but the description admits it is " not as metallic '' as other products. Using a primary keyword like " Metallic '' while burying a disclaimer that contradicts that very keyword is a classic " bait and switch ''. My argument : " The merchant used a specific, desirable material quality ( 'Metallic ' ) to induce the sale, while simultaneously acknowledging in the fine print that the product does not possess that quality to a standard degree. This is a material misrepresentation of fact ''. 8. Failure of " Duty of Disclosure '' ( The Hidden Seams ) In professional decorating, a " roll '' implies a continuous, unbroken strip. The XXXX : The merchant hides the fact that this is not XXXX continuous XXXX ribbon, but multiple short strips glued together. By not placing " SEAMED RIBBON '' in the product title, they are withholding a material fact that would have prevented the purchase. My argument : " The merchant failed their duty of disclosure. A XXXX roll ' in a professional context implies a continuous length. The presence of hidden adhesive joints every XXXX inches is a manufacturing shortcut that was intentionally omitted from the product 's primary description to mislead the buyer. '' XXXX. Failure of " XXXX of XXXX '' ( The Hidden Seams ) In professional decorating, a " roll '' implies a continuous, unbroken strip. The XXXX : The merchant hides the fact that this is not XXXX continuous XXXX ribbon, but multiple short strips glued together. By not placing " SEAMED RIBBON '' in the product title, they are withholding a material fact that would have prevented the purchase. My argument : " The merchant failed their duty of disclosure. A XXXX roll ' in a professional context implies a continuous length. The presence of hidden adhesive joints every 30 inches is a manufacturing shortcut that was intentionally omitted from the product 's primary description to mislead the buyer. '' 10. Violation of " Truth in Advertising '' ( The Metallic Lie ) The XXXX : The merchant uses a photo that appears to have a high-gloss, reflective sheen ( likely edited or taken under studio lighting that the product can't replicate ). My argument : " The merchants website uses digitally enhanced imagery to represent a metallic finish that the actual productby the merchant 's own admission in the fine printdoes not possess. This is a violation of FTC Truth in Advertising standards, as the visual representation is the primary basis for the consumer 's purchase decision. '' 11. Breach of " Express Warranty. '' An express warranty is created when a seller makes a specific promise about a product that becomes the " basis of the bargain. '' The XXXX : The website claims this product is a " food miracle '' that " behaves like real ribbon. '' If the product snaps, doesn't drape, or has rough, glued edges, they have breached an express warranty. My argument : " The merchant made specific, high-level performance claims ( e.g., 'behaves like real ribbon ' ) to justify a premium price. The actual product lacks the tensile strength and flexibility of ribbon. Under the Uniform Commercial Code 2-313, the merchant has breached an express warranty, rendering the sale invalid. '' 12. Failure of " Quantity and Continuity. '' In the world of textiles and trims, a " roll '' has a specific meaning. The XXXX : When a consumer buys a " 26-foot roll, '' they are paying for uninterrupted length. Selling a series of 30-inch scraps glued together without clearly labeling the product as " pieced '' or " seamed '' is a failure to deliver the quantity of continuous material expected. My argument : " The merchant delivered a 'pieced ' product rather than a continuous roll. This is the equivalent of ordering a single 10-foot piece of lumber and receiving five 2-foot pieces glued together. The structural and aesthetic integrity is compromised, and the 'quantity ' of continuous material ordered was never delivered. '' 13. " Unconscionable '' Terms of Service The XXXX : The merchant uses a " No Returns '' policy for food items. However, since the item is a pre-manufactured, shelf-stable decorating supply ( not a fresh cake ), the " perishable '' excuse is a legal stretch used to trap customers with defective goods. My argument : " The merchant 's 'No Returns ' policy is unconscionable when applied to misrepresented or defective non-perishable supplies. Using a 'food ' classification to avoid the Fair Credit Billing Act requirements for 'goods not as described ' is a bad-faith business practice designed to deny consumers their right to a remedy for faulty merchandise. '' 14. Chemical Flavor Profile : The product relies heavily on sodium benzoate, potassium sorbate, and artificial flavors. These preservatives, when paired with high concentrations of XXXX food dye, often produce a bitter, metallic, or soap-like aftertaste that is common in " jet XXXX '' food products. Plastic-Like Texture : The ribbon contains sodium carboxymethylcellulose and xanthan gum. While these make the ribbon flexible like fabric, they can create a texture that decorators describe as " stretchy like slime '' or " chewy like plastic ''. If it doesn't dissolve like food, it is a failure of " merchantability. '' The " Metallic '' Bitterness : The metallic version specifically adds mica pearlescent pigments. Mica-based additives can impart a gritty or harsh mineral taste that is not " neutral '' or " sweet '' as promised. 15. XXXX Adhesion : Despite appearing like a roll of tape, the ribbon has no adhesive properties. The surface is " slippery '' and repels moisture. I tested several liquids ( water and saliva ) to activate a bond, but the material remained non-sticky and failed to adhere to the target surface. 16. Lack of Material Integrity : The item 's texture is comparable to dried chewing gum. It lacks any tensile strength ; pulling even slightly from the edge causes the material to rip randomly in the center rather than unrolling or stretching as a ribbon should. 17. Total Lack of Flexibility : Because the material is brittle and " dry, '' it can not be manipulated or applied to a cake without shattering, making it a " total loss '' product. Merchant 's Refusal to Cooperate : I contacted the merchant to report these defects and explicitly offered to return the unused portion of the product for a refund. The merchant has refused to resolve the issue or provide a refund for this defective merchandise. Request for Action : Under the terms of the Fair Credit Billing Act ( and/or [ XXXX ] dispute rules for " Goods Not as Described or Defective '' ), I am entitled to a refund. Since the merchant has refused a return and the product is fundamentally defective, I request a full chargeback of the transaction amount. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

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 monetary relief