Consumer complaint received 2026-02-08 00:00:00
Product: Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service — Mobile or digital wallet
Issue: Unauthorized transactions or other transaction problem — 
Company: Paypal Holdings, Inc
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
I am filing a complaint about PayPals dispute-handling process and denial of unauthorized charges involving merchant XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX PayPal is asserting that an active billing agreement exists, but PayPal has refused to provide the billing agreement and authorization documentation it claims to rely on, and PayPal has mischaracterized my position as you previously indicated you authorized this agreement, which is false. 
Charges and amounts : XX/XX/XXXX {$28.00} XX/XX/XXXX {$57.00} XX/XX/XXXX {$57.00} XX/XX/XXXX {$69.00} Total : {$210.00} PayPals position : PayPal states these charges were made under a billing agreement allegedly created on XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX XXXX  PST, and that the agreement was canceled only after a transaction processed. PayPal denies the claim as not unauthorized and instructs me to resolve with the merchant, despite the merchant being non-responsive. 

My position : I never knowingly created or authorized a PayPal billing agreement with UAB Kilo Grup. PayPal has repeatedly asserted the agreement exists, but has not provided : the Billing Agreement ID, the name of the app/service associated with the agreement, the consent/authorization record ( how I supposedly agreed ), the terms accepted ( billing cadence/amounts ), or the platform/account/device used to create it.

I requested the documents used in PayPals investigation ; PayPal responses have stated Attached are the requested documents, yet no attachments were provided. PayPal has also shown in the dispute timeline that XXXX XXXX XXXX shared tracking info and later shared some info ( XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX ), but PayPal has never disclosed what this information was. These are digital app subscription charges, so shipping/tracking information is inapplicable and does not establish authorization. 

Delayed discovery : At the time of the first small charge, I did not recognize the merchant name. I contacted the merchant using the contact information provided through PayPal each time a charge occurred, including the first charge, and received no response. In late XX/XX/XXXX, a PayPal representative identified the associated app name XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ), which was the first time PayPal disclosed what XXXX XXXX XXXX represented. Only then could I locate my XX/XX/XXXX cancellation and connect all charges as part of the same unauthorized pattern. My initial uncertainty about the first small charge was due to lack of disclosure, not consent. 
Misrepresentation of my statements : In a subsequent PayPal response, I was told : You previously indicated that you authorized this payment agreement but youre unhappy with the terms. This statement is false. I have never stated that I authorized any billing agreement with this merchant. I explicitly disputed authorization and repeatedly requested proof of the alleged agreement. PayPals characterization of my position is inaccurate and appears to be used to justify denial of my claim without providing supporting documentation.

Key issue : PayPal is denying my claim by asserting a billing agreement exists while refusing to produce the agreement/authorization record, and PayPal has inaccurately portrayed my statements as authorization. PayPal continues to direct me to resolve with a non-responsive merchant.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation