Consumer complaint received 2026-06-12 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: CITIBANK, N.A.
State: NY

Complaint narrative:
On XX/XX/year>, I was the victim of a well-documented merchant bait-and-switch scam on the streets of XXXX XXXX involving a mobile terminal XXXX XXXX under the name " SQ * XXXX ''. I was stood in front of and cornered into a fence by two persons for a photo. I was then pressured into 'tipping '. To diffuse the situation I had offered a small tip and was pressured to up to {$20.00}. The merchant verbally stated and visually displayed a transaction amount of approximately {$21.00} ( for taxes, they said ) on the terminal screen, this was 'tip ' for a photo I was coerced into. Based strictly on that explicit representation, I tapped my device using XXXX XXXX ( device account ending in XXXX ). The merchant fraudulently processed the transaction for {$170.00}. No itemized paper or digital receipt was provided by the merchant at the time of the transaction, which is a deliberate tactic used in these street scams to prevent immediate consumer documentation. I filed a timely billing dispute with Citibank to challenge this incorrect transaction amount. Citibank failed to conduct a meaningful investigation as required by the Fair Credit Billing Act ( FCBA ). Instead, they summarily denied the initial claim without reviewing the case. I spent over an hour on hold to initiate the appeal process and was told I would get an email -- which took over 10 days. Then, they subsequently issued a generic, automated form letter demanding that I provide, " documentation proving you should have been billed an amount other than what the merchant billed to your account. ". This completely ignores the reality of street-level merchant fraud, which relies entirely on withholding documentation. Citibank is improperly relying strictly on the cryptographic success of the XXXX XXXX proximity log to assert authorization of the amount, rather than holding the merchant accountable. As seen in the attached photo, the XXXX XXXX also did not display the amount of the charge so I had no knowledge of the scam until the next day. Under the FCBA, I demand that Citibank require the merchant to substantiate the {$170.00} charge with an itemized invoice, contract, or signed receipt proving I agreed to that specific total. A simple tap log proves proximity, not an agreement to a fraudulent fee. Furthermore, the generic letter Citibank ( also attached ) sent demanding a response failed to provide any instructions, mailing address, online link, or fax number indicating how a consumer is legally supposed to respond or submit information. This represents a systematic, user-hostile barrier to a consumers federal right to challenge a billing error. I am a long-standing customer with a substantial credit history and an perfect payment record. Citibank is refusing to protect me from blatant, documented consumer fraud. I request that Citibank reopen this case, conduct a compliant investigation, and permanently remove the fraudulent {$170.00} charge from my account.

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 non-monetary relief