Consumer complaint received 2025-10-27 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: BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
The Bank of America 's ( BOA 's ) rigid dispute categorization is a structurally flawed mechanism designed to circumvent consumer protection laws in cases of merchant fraud.

1. The Fraudulent Transaction On XX/XX/year>, the consumer was charged a total of {$410.00} by merchant XXXX for tickets and parking to the XXXX XXXX XXXX event on XX/XX/year>. 

This purchase was secured through a deceptive sales funnel that XXXX created to deliberately avoid transparency. The merchant has two sales channels : a standard website with appropriate disclaimers and a hidden path ( via a XXXX XXXX to a subpage ) that conceals vital information and disclaimers. The consumer was a victim of this hidden path, which hides disclaimers as not being the original seller of the ticket, and the one and only potential disclaimer immediately vanishes upon interaction with the website ( different from the main webpage that has disclaimers throughout ).

2. The Consumer 's Dispute Argument ( The Basis for Reversing the
Charge ) The consumer 's claim is based on the following : Intentional
Fraudulent Misrepresentation : XXXX deliberately used a deceptive advertising funnel ( XXXX XXXX to a specific subpage ) to mimic themselves as the primary seller of the tickets through concealing its identity as a reseller. This allowed the vendor to secure a sale based on a lie and charge the consumer grossly inflated prices.

Unenforceable Contract : The deceptive subpage intentionally hid all disclaimers and terms of service. Therefore, the consumer was never given notice of or assented to any binding contract.

FCBA Protections Apply : The consumer 's claim is covered by federal law ( FCBA ) under the right to dispute charges when goods or services are misrepresented or not as described/agreed.

3. Bank 's Handling of the Dispute The Crucial Flaw On XX/XX/year>, the consumer initiated a credit card dispute with the bank, citing the fraud and misrepresentation. The merchant refused to issue a refund, enforcing its non-binding " all sales are final '' policy. 

The next section is the crucial element of the complaint against BOA, as it demonstrates a systemic failure by BOA to protect consumers from merchant fraud : The BOAs dispute system seems to operate on two limited categories : ( 1 ) Did you not provide the account information ( fraud )? or ( 2 ) Did you provide account information and need to dispute it ( billing dispute )? The bank only recognizes " fraud '' in which the consumer does not provide credit card info and all other activity, even pervasive vendor fraud, gets defaulted to a simple billing dispute. 

I provided extensive evidence, including screenshots of the deceptive ads and the disappearing disclaimers, to BOA and was explicitly told by a BOA representative that the merchant 's fraudulent or scam tactics to secure a sale " do not matter '' to the dispute outcome as long as I knowingly gave credit card info and recieved the product ( including a misrepresented product ). I even presented extreme hypothetical examples to show that BOA 's policy treats a vendor who fraudulently impersonates a major retailer to secure a sale as a billing dispute, not fraud. 

The bank subsequently denied the chargeback, upholding the merchants fraudulent sale. This denial is based on a fundamental failure to apply the FCBA, as : 1 ) The service the consumer received ( a resale ticket purchased under fraudulent pretenses ) was fundamentally not the product/service the consumer believed the consumer was agreeing to buy ( an official primary market ticket ). 

-The tickets were purchased under a contract that is legally voidable due to the merchant 's fraud, specifically the misrepresentation of its identity as a primary seller through hiding disclaimers and the concealment of binding terms housed outside of the consumer 's sales experience 4. Crucial Denials and Mitigation Efforts : The consumer attempted to obtain a refund immediately after the transaction went through and XXXX denied, citing terms and conditions that were never visible but only contained on their main website ( not the sale 's channel the consumer was victim to ). Furthermore, the consumer attempted to get a refund continuously and well before the event but was repeatedly denied. Consequently, the consumer did not use these tickets given they were sold for fraud and the consumer did not want to be viewed as engaging in friendly fraud ( i.e., inappropriately using a ticket the consumer could be refunded for ).

This failure by the bank to recognize intentional misrepresentation and concealment as a valid basis for a chargeback means the bank is enabling a fraudulent merchant and failing to conduct a reasonable investigation under the FCBA. The consumer is being held liable for a charge secured by fraud, which the consumer never benefited from or used.

Given Bank of America failed to resolve the consumer 's issue appropriately, the consumer has ended a 13-year relationship by closing the credit card account regardless of the consumer 's perfect credit history and credit score.

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 explanation