Consumer complaint received 2025-11-09 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Problem with a lender or other company charging your account — Money was taken from your account on the wrong day or for the wrong amount
Company: JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
Complaint Summary JPMorgan Chase wrongfully approved a Visa 10.4 fraudulent / card-absent chargeback for 2x payments of {$290.00} USD, despite clear, documented evidence that the cardholder ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX personally authorized the transaction and actively used the services for months. Chase certified that the cardholder denied involvement in the transaction, but this claim is disproven by multiple written records. 

The bank ignored decisive evidence, including the customers written reply I agree, extensive platform usage, appointment history, customer support interactions, a public 5-star review, and a later written cancellation request. This demonstrates he knowingly authorized, benefited from, and later voluntarily terminated the service.

This is not fraud it is a friendly-fraud abuse of the dispute process. 

Detailed Description On XX/XX/year>, 2x monthly payments of {$290.00} Visa transaction to my business ( XXXX XXXX ) was disputed by cardholder XXXX ( XXXX ) Petite under Reason Code 10.4 Fraud, card-absent environment. 

Chase certified that the cardholder denied authorization or participation. 
However, I submitted overwhelming evidence to the acquiring bank ( XXXX  ) demonstrating that XXXX XXXX : Explicitly authorized the charge in writing via email. 
He replied to our monthly pricing proposal email with the words I agree. 
( XX/XX/year> ) Actively used and payed for the service over several months. 
Customer onboarding, XXXX activity logs, and scheduled appointments show continued engagement. 

Left a 5-star public review confirming value of the service.

Submitted a formal cancellation request, which proves he knew about the subscription and had been using the service. He wrote that he did not want to cancel but wanted the system to work for his clients.

All of this activity took place before the dispute meaning the cardholder voluntarily used the service, benefited from it, and later attempted to reverse the valid payments.

This is a textbook case of friendly fraud.

The cardholder participated and later misrepresented the transaction as unauthorized.

Despite this, the issuer sided with the cardholder and ignored strong evidence.

I am attaching the following documented proof : - Email authorization ( I agree ) - Detailed XXXX usage records - Public 5-star review - Written cancellation request These prove he knowingly used the service and later falsely claimed fraud.

Bank Claims that the authorization is invalid because the customer XXXX XXXX, replied using his alias name " XXXX XXXX '', meanwhile the original email address signature match the purchase original made on XXXX  : XXXX XXXX ) Same Email= Same Person The written I agree came from the same email address used to complete the XXXX  purchase ( XXXX ) confirming identity regardless of nickname. 

2 ) XXXX = Common Nickname XXXX is a standard, widely recognized nickname for XXXX. 
Nicknames do not invalidate authorization. 

3 ) Consistent Account Use The customer : - Logged in repeatedly - Booked onboarding calls - Interacted with support - Someone claiming fraud would not access and use the account for months. 

4 ) Positive Public Review He posted a 5-star Trustpilot review under the same identity confirming satisfaction and participation.

5 ) Written Cancellation Request He voluntarily canceled later, acknowledging his ongoing account and usage.

Someone who didnt authorize the charge would not cancel something they didnt know about.

6 ) Standard Practice Digital identity is confirmed by email + account access, not the exact text of a display name. Visa does not require full legal signature format in XXXX environments. 

7 ) Wrong Visa Code ( 10.4 ) Rule 10.4 only applies if the cardholder did not authorize or participate.

Here, he clearly did both making this friendly fraud, not true fraud.

Conclusion All evidence ( email, usage, review, cancellation ) confirms the cardholder knowingly authorized and used the service. The nickname XXXX does NOT invalidate authorization. 
These 2x chargebacks should be reversed.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation