Consumer complaint received 2021-04-21 00:00:00
Product: Credit card or prepaid 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: CITIBANK, N.A.
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
Citi Banks ' website offers assurances that card holders will be protected from unauthorized and fraudulent charges. " Citi helps to protect your accounts from day one, '' a webpage states ; also, " You're completely protected against unauthorized charges on your account. At Citi, you will not be responsible for a charge that you did not authorize, online or otherwise. '' But, Citi Bank 's process for investigating such charges appears designed to thwart that promise. 

Unknown to the public, the bank employs an unorthodox definition of " authorize. '' And the bank 's process for handling unauthorized and disputed charges is a " black box '' -- opaque to the consumer. In addition, the process is highly leveraged in favor of the merchant, who is invited to present his case, with any documentation, while the customer is muzzled, discouraged from providing documentation, and permitted only to check off a box that would not likely affect the outcome, according to a Citi representative. These conclusions are supported by my recent experience with Citi Bank. 

I received an email notice from Citi Bank on XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX XXXX ET that a charge of {$200.00} had been made to my AT & T XXXX account. I was not expecting a charge of that amount and realized that I could not find my credit card. I assumed it had been stolen. Wanting to be a responsible bank customer, I immediately reported the card as lost or stolen on Citi Bank 's website so that other unauthorized charges could be prevented. The website only offers checkboxes, and I checked the one that seemed most pertinent, although none seemed to fully describe the situation. The bank 's website did not allow users to submit any details or explanation and made no mention of alternatives. It did not explain how Citi defines terms like " unauthorized '' or " fraud. '' About an hour later, at XXXX XXXX CT, I called XXXX to tell them the charge was unauthorized. A customer service representatives disputed that, saying the charge was authorized and that the charge included domain registration extension of XXXX for the domain plus an add-on security product. I was stunned to hear that, believing that all of my domains were set up for XXXX renewals. 

Whether that was a mistake of theirs or mine, or intentional interference, I don't know, but I told them that, regardless of what they believed, I did not want to renew registration for XXXX years ( I can not afford it ), and asked for a XXXXr renewal ( which I routinely request for domains ). This discussion took place on the first day that the registration could be renewed. I considered that a reasonable request, and other merchants would gladly comply, but XXXX told me they would not comply, alleging they could not change the order. They offered no credible explanation for that decision, saying only that it was " policy. '' XXXX 's representative said they would take the domain away from me, auction it and keep the proceeds if I did not pay the full amount that including the XXXX renewal. ( At some point, CitiBank had declined payment, I learned from an email, though it's unclear when. ) XXXX did not offer to separately renew a second domain acknowledged by them in a later email as authorized for XXXX renewal. I wanted to renew both domains for XXXX year, but XXXX took XXXX domains from me because I would not authorize the {$200.00} charge. Their response was so unreasonable, I could only conclude that XXXX saw a big profit for itself in auctioning the domains, which had appeal for many people and could see for hundreds of dollars. 

I tried to submit the new information about the charge to CitiCard via their online chat system, but their chat system refused to accept it. ( Whether that was intentional or a breakdown, I don't know. ) Because it is torture to try to get someone at Citi on the phone, I waited for CitiCard to call me for more information, assuming they would want to know more than a check box could provide. No one from Citi called. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, I received emails from XXXX informing me they had taken possession of XXXX of my registered domains -- xxxxxxxxxx.info and the second domain, xxxxxxx.com, that I also had wanted to renew for XXXX year. XXXX alleged it was not possible for to renew the domains. On XX/XX/XXXX, CitiBank informed me that it had received a letter from XXXX, dated XX/XX/XXXX, saying it still wants payment of {$200.00} -- for registrations it says can not be provided for domains XXXX now claims as its own. It is blatantly unfair and fraudulent, in my view, to charge a customer for a product the merchant says it can not provide. As a customer of XXXX for more than a decade, and as a XXXX retiree living on a small pension amidst an economic crisis, I was shocked and hurt by XXXX 's abuse. But, I was equally shocked by Citi 's response. 

After receiving Citi 's email telling me to view XXXX 's response, I called Citi -- an effort that required XXXX calls across a XXXX period -- and eventually was forwarded to a representative in their security section. In other words, it was a typical XXXX experience. The Citi representative appeared interested only in whether I wanted to check off a box reporting the transaction as fraud, or not. He made clear to me that it didn't really matter which box as Citi considered XXXX 's charge to be " authorized '' merely because my Citi card was on file with them for recurring charges. I had never been informed of that policy previously, had seen nothing about it on Citi 's website, and I doubt most other bank customers are aware of it. Millions of people have cards on file for recurring utility charges, newspaper and XXXX subscriptions, and much more. 

When I tried to make my case and offered to provide documentation, the representative repeatedly cut me off with comments displayed thinly veiled contempt for my credibility. There was no reason for such an assumption and this was not the first time a male representative of CitiBank had treated me so. 

On top of an extremely unequal " investigation '' process, for which the outcome appeared to be pre-determined, the Citi representative informed me that the bank has XXXX channels for handling charge issues, XXXX running through the security department, and XXXX designated for dispute resolution. He told me a dispute received by XXXX department could not be transferred to the other. Again, I was given no credible explanation except that it is " policy '' -- a word that companies apparently use when they are ashamed to reveal the real reason. 

Given Citi 's other policy that having a credit card on file warrants a merchant to make any charges it desires without accountability, it probably did not matter how my complaint was directed. I was not happy with the dispute resolution channel 's handling of a past complaint and had to resort to filing a complaint here before the charge was permanently reversed. I thought perhaps that was an exception, but now that I know more about the bank 's handling of complaints, I can see that unfairness is baked into its complaint process. Trying to negotiate that process was frustrating and exhausting, and left me feeling as if someone had accosted me on the street and taken my purse. 

Citi 's webpage where I reported the lost/stolen card ( that still has not turned up ), does not explain its XXXX process or offer alternatives to checking off its checkbox on that page. Further, it does not explain how Citi interprets the word " unauthorized '' although that is critical to getting a complaint to the most applicable department, I'm told. In every way, the Citi Bank customer is handicapped by the process Citi Bank uses, and it seems likely to handicap investigating credit card fraud as much as it handicaps customers in getting unfair charges dismissed. 

I believe Citi Bank 's complaint process violates commonly-accepted notions of fairness and accountability, and probably violates fair advertising law. I hope someone will investigate Citi 's handling of unauthorized charges, its advertising claims and how women customers are treated, and ensure that necessary changes are made. Finally, I request that someone with the appropriate authority will intervene to dismiss XXXX 's charges to my card for a product it refuses to provide.

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 explanation