Consumer complaint received 2025-12-31 00:00:00
Product: Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service — Mobile or digital wallet
Issue: Confusing or misleading advertising or marketing — 
Company: Paypal Holdings, Inc

Complaint narrative:
XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX, XXXX for {$480.00} XXXX Second Charge : XXXX XX/XX/XXXX for {$240.00} XXXX  Total Amount Disputed : {$730.00} XXXX  XXXX Dispute Case Number ( for first charge ) : XXXX I am filing a complaint against XXXX for unfairly denying my dispute and for enabling a merchant, " XXXX, '' to receive payment for software that is materially not as described and unfit for its advertised purpose in XXXX, resulting in XXXX separate charges for XXXX single, non-functional service. 

XXXX. The First Transaction & Fundamental Product Defect : On XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX processed a charge of {$480.00} XXXX  for an annual XXXX  subscription. I was attracted by a promotional link promising a " XXXX free trial, on XXXX '' but the full annual fee was charged within a week. Critically, the software does not perform its core function. It is marketed for dropshipping but is technically incompatible with major XXXX retailers like XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX and XXXX etc, making it useless for my business and negating its entire value. 

XXXX. The Compounded Harm Leading to a Second Charge : After my justified dispute with XXXX over the first charge was denied, I was left with a paid account for software I could not use. Subsequently, AutoDS deactivated this account. To regain access to the platformsolely to address the original defect or retrieve XXXX felt I had no practical alternative but to purchase a new subscription on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, resulting in a second XXXX charge of {$240.00} XXXX. This was a payment for the same fundamentally defective and non-functional software. 

XXXX. Exhaustion of Direct Resolution Paths : I filed a formal " Item Not as Described '' dispute with XXXX for the first {$480.00} charge, providing clear evidence of the software 's failure in the XXXX market. XXXX denied this valid claim. 

I contacted XXXX repeatedly, seeking refunds for both subscriptions based on the product 's incompatibility. All requests were refused. 

Given XXXX 's prior denial, I did not file a separate dispute for the second charge, having lost confidence in the process. 

The Core Complaint XXXX XXXX : XXXX 's buyer protection failed in this instance. By denying my first dispute for a digital product that was demonstrably not as described and unfit for purpose, XXXX left me without recourse. This failure directly contributed to further financial harm, as I was effectively forced to pay the merchant a second time ( {$240.00} ) to even attempt to resolve the issues with the first, defective purchase. XXXX 's platform has thus facilitated the collection of {$730.00} for a software subscription that provides no functional value in my geographic market. 


I request the CFPB 's assistance in compelling XXXX to provide a full refund of {$730.00} USD for both transactions. The merchant AutoDS has been paid for a product it can not deliver as advertised in XXXX, and XXXX 's dispute process did not offer the protection it promises. 

Attached Documentation : Screenshots of the promotional " free trial '' offer. 
Evidence of the software 's failure with XXXX retailer websites ( XXXX, XXXX, etc. ). 
XXXX transaction details for both charges ( {$480.00} and {$240.00} ). 
All correspondence with AutoDS requesting refunds. 
XXXX 's final decision denying the dispute for the first charge.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation