Consumer complaint received 2026-01-26 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: CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION
State: MN

Complaint narrative:
I am submitting this follow-up complaint to formally rebut the merchants latest response and Capital Ones continued refusal to provide meaningful consumer protection, despite clear evidence of unfair and unreasonable conduct.

1. Control of the Ad Account and Budget Was Exclusively the Merchants Responsibility Throughout the entire program, the merchant had full and exclusive control over the advertising account, including campaign setup, budget configuration, pacing, and optimization. I did not interfere with, limit, or modify any ad settings. I relied on the merchants professional expertise, as instructed, and fully cooperated with their process. 

If the merchant now claims that refund eligibility was not met due to a daily ad budget requirement, this condition was entirely within their controlnot mine. Holding me responsible for an alleged budget shortfall caused by the merchants own configuration is fundamentally unfair. 

2. The $ XXXX Requirement Is Being Retroactively Reframed The contract references a $ XXXX requirement. However, during the sales process and throughout execution, the merchants team repeatedly stated and implemented a $ XXXX budget. This budget was set and managed by the merchant, not requested or imposed by me. 

Now, after the trial period ended and I requested a refund, the merchant claims that the $ XXXX figure was merely a benchmark and that $ XXXX is functionally equivalent. This position is internally contradictory. If $ XXXX is functionally equivalent, then it can not simultaneously be used to disqualify me from a refund. 

This is a retroactive reinterpretation of contract terms introduced only after my refund request, not a condition clearly disclosed or enforced during the program. 

3. The Program Was Structurally Set Up to Guarantee Disqualification The merchant argues that approximately 96 % of the $ XXXX benchmark was achieved and characterizes this as meaningful progress. Yet this same variance is being used to deny my refund. 

This creates an unreasonable and deceptive situation : - The merchant controlled the conditions. 
- The merchant set the budget below the contractual figure. 
- The merchant later used that same condition to deny a refund. 
- This raises a serious concern that the program was effectively structured to ensure that refund eligibility could be denied regardless of consumer compliance. 

4. I Fully Performed My Obligations Under the Agreement I paid the agreed upfront amount, funded advertising, allowed the merchant to operate without interference, followed all instructions, and gave the program a full three-month testing period beginning when ads went live on XX/XX/year>. 

Financially, the outcome was clearly unsuccessful : - Total spend ( program + ads ) : {$5400.00} - Total revenue generated : {$3100.00} - Net result : {$2100.00} This was not a viable, scalable, or successful outcome by any reasonable business standard. The merchants own actions confirm that performance failed to stabilize or scale. 

5. Capital One Failed to Address the Core Unfairness Despite reviewing the dispute multiple times, Capital One has continued to accept the merchants position without addressing the core issue : Is it fair or reasonable to deny a consumer a refund based on conditions entirely controlled and misconfigured by the merchant? 

Capital Ones responses have repeated prior denial language without explaining how consumer responsibility can attach to merchant-controlled execution. This reflects a procedural denial rather than a substantive review. 

6. Ongoing Merchant Refusal and Narrative Shifting Even after the dispute denial, I continued communicating with the merchant in good faith. Despite extensive documentation and clear explanations, the merchant continues to shift narratives and justify the refusal using post hoc reasoning. 

As a consumer, I have exhausted reasonable avenues directly with the merchant. I am now relying on CFPB oversight to ensure a fair review and to hold both the merchant and the bank accountable for an unjust outcome. 

-- -- Requested Resolution -- -- I respectfully request that CFPB require Capital One to : - Reevaluate this dispute based on the full factual record, - Address the unfairness of holding a consumer responsible for merchant-controlled conditions,- And ensure that consumer dispute protections are applied in substance, not merely in form.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation