Consumer complaint received 2026-06-24 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: U.S. BANCORP
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, CA XXXX XXXX XXXX VIA FAX : XXXX U.S. BANK CARDMEMBER DISPUTE RESOLUTION DEPARTMENT RE : FORMAL DEMAND FOR REOPENING OF DISPUTE INVESTIGATION, APPEAL OF DENIAL, BREACH OF CONTRACT, GOODS NOT AS DESCRIBED, MISREPRESENTATION, FAILURE TO HONOR MONEY-BACK GUARANTEE, AND REQUEST FOR IMMEDIATE REVERSAL OF CHARGE Cardholder : XXXX XXXX U.S. Bank XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Dispute Number : XXXX Transaction Date : XX/XX/year> Merchant : XXXX * XXXX Amount in Dispute : {$2500.00} To Whom It May Concern : I hereby formally appeal U.S. Bank 's denial of Dispute No. XXXX and demand that U.S. Bank immediately reopen and reinvestigate this matter. The denial letter dated XX/XX/year> states that U.S. Bank found insufficient evidence to support my claim of defective merchandise. I respectfully submit that the investigation failed to fully consider the substantial evidence demonstrating that the merchant delivered a product and service materially different from what was advertised and promised. FACTUAL BASIS OF DISPUTE On XX/XX/year>, I purchased XXXX XXXX 's XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and related services through XXXX * XXXX for {$2500.00}. The merchant represented that : The software was a professionally managed automated trading solution. The software would generate automated trading activity and passive income. The software was compatible with brokerage and trading platforms. The company would provide onboarding, integration, monitoring, support, and management. Customers would be protected by a 60-Day Money Back Guarantee. These representations were material factors in my decision to purchase. After payment, I discovered that the software delivered was not functioning as represented. The software could not be properly opened, connected, integrated, or utilized with my brokerage environment as advertised. The product delivered was materially different from the product represented during the sales process. As a result, I was deprived of the core functionality that formed the basis of the transaction. COUNTERFEIT, NON-FUNCTIONAL, AND DEFECTIVE DIGITAL PRODUCT The software delivered was effectively unusable for its represented purpose. The product failed to perform the advertised functions and failed to provide the capabilities promised during the sales presentation. Where a merchant delivers a digital product that can not perform its intended purpose, can not be utilized as represented, and can not be integrated into the customer 's trading environment, the product is not delivered as agreed. A consumer who purchases software represented as operational automated trading software and instead receives a non-functional or unusable product has not received the benefit of the bargain. BREACH OF CONTRACT The merchant also advertised and represented a 60-Day Money Back Guarantee. After notifying the merchant of the software failures and requesting a refund, the merchant refused to honor the advertised guarantee. Failure to honor an express refund policy constitutes a material breach of contract. The merchant accepted payment while refusing to comply with the refund terms used to induce the transaction. MISREPRESENTATION AND DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES The merchant marketed the software as a passive-income generating automated trading solution and represented that customers could expect substantial trading profits. Such representations created reasonable consumer expectations regarding functionality, compatibility, support, and performance. The actual product delivered failed to conform to those representations. To the extent the merchant induced payment through inaccurate or misleading representations regarding software functionality, support, compatibility, profitability, monitoring, risk controls, or refund protections, such conduct constitutes material misrepresentation and deceptive business practices. FAIR CREDIT BILLING ACT AND REGULATION Z This dispute falls squarely within protections afforded to consumers under : Fair Credit Billing Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1666 ) Truth in Lending Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq. ) Regulation Z ( 12 C.F.R. 1026.12 and 1026.13 ) Federal law requires reasonable investigation of disputes involving goods and services not delivered as agreed, materially misrepresented products, and merchant breaches of contract. The Federal Reserve has expressly recognized that billing-error protections apply where goods or services were not delivered as agreed, delivered differently than represented, or otherwise fail to conform to the contractual agreement. The facts presented here involve : Goods and Services Not as Described Failure to Deliver Contracted Functionality Material Misrepresentation Breach of Contract Failure to Honor Express Refund Guarantees Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices XXXX OBLIGATIONS As an issuing bank participating in the XXXX network, U.S. Bank has obligations to investigate cardholder disputes involving : Defective goods Digital products not functioning as represented Goods not as described Services not rendered Failure to honor refund policies Misrepresentation by merchants A determination that merely labels the dispute as " defective merchandise '' without considering the broader issues of breach of contract, non-delivery of contracted functionality, failure to honor refund guarantees, and material misrepresentation fails to fully evaluate the dispute under applicable consumer-protection standards. REQUEST FOR RELIEF Accordingly, I demand that U.S. Bank : 1. Immediately reopen Dispute No. XXXX ; 2. Conduct a supervisory-level review ; 3. Reevaluate all evidence relating to software functionality, compatibility failures, refund requests, and merchant representations ; 4. Review all communications with XXXX XXXX XXXX ; 5. Reverse the disputed charge of {$2500.00} ; 6. Permanently credit my account for the disputed amount ; 7. Provide copies of all documents, merchant responses, investigative findings, and evidence relied upon in denying my claim ; 8. Preserve all records relating to this dispute for future regulatory review, arbitration, litigation, CFPB review, FTC review, and state consumer-protection review. NOTICE OF REGULATORY ESCALATION If U.S. Bank declines to reopen and properly investigate this matter, I reserve all rights to pursue additional remedies through : Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ) California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation California Attorney General Office of the Comptroller of the Currency XXXX Consumer Dispute Escalation Channels Arbitration and Civil Litigation Nothing contained herein shall be construed as a waiver of any rights available under federal law, state law, XXXX operating rules, or applicable consumer-protection statutes. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing statements are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Respectfully Submitted, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, CA XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

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