Consumer complaint received 2026-06-07 00:00:00
Product: Credit card — General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Problem with a purchase shown on your statement — Card was charged for something you did not purchase with the card
Company: CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION
State: MS

Complaint narrative:
Subject : Deceptive Merchant Negative-Option Billing and XXXX Bank XXXX XXXX to Investigate under the XXXX ( Account ending in XXXX ) I know this is a lot, and I'm sorry. But I can't let them get away with this.... Summary : I am filing a new, formal complaint against XXXX Bank for its continued failure to properly resolve a series of XXXX unauthorized charges totaling {$170.00} from a predatory merchant operating as " MILLIONAIRE MUTT '' ( XXXX FL ). XXXX has issued an incomplete, logically contradictory response that violates the XXXX XXXX Billing Act ( FCBA ) by failing to hold the merchant to the legal burden of proof regarding consumer authorization. Background : In XX/XX/XXXX, I made a legitimate, one-time purchase for dog medication from this merchant for {$120.00}. I never authorized, requested, or knowingly checked a box to sign up for a recurring {$29.00} monthly " VIP membership. '' The merchant engaged in deceptive " negative-option billing, '' automatically enrolling me without clear disclosure or explicit consent. I discovered the unauthorized {$29.00} monthly charges in XX/XX/XXXX. The charges occurred on : XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX ( all XXXX ), and XX/XX/XXXX. I called the merchant, they refused a refund and literally hung up on me when I asked the rep for her name. That was when I called XXXX about the fraudulent charges. XXXX opened XXXX individual billing dispute cases on XX/XX/XXXX : XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX. But they simply ( and repeatedly ) stated " the charges are valid '' and would not issue a refund. So I filed a complaint with you all. XXXX Contradictory & Non-Compliant Resolution : On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX sent a formal response ( CFPB Case # XXXX ) that is illogical and unacceptable : Logical Contradiction : XXXX ruled in my favor for Case XXXX and Case XXXX, admitting the transactions were unauthorized. However, they flatly denied XXXX XXXX, claiming their research confirmed the charge was " correct. '' It is logically impossible for the exact same hidden, recurring subscription to be fraudulent on XXXX dates but legally " correct '' on a third. Missing/Unresolved Case Statuses : XXXX 's letter completely failed to provide a final, permanent resolution status for the remaining XXXX cases : XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX. Additionally their letter stated that they would reverse the interest and penalty charges and they did not. Since then more charges have accrued. Violation of the XXXX Burden of Proof : Under the Fair Credit Billing Act, when a consumer disputes a charge as unauthorized, the card issuer must conduct a reasonable investigation. The legal burden of proof lies entirely on the merchant to produce an explicit contract, digital signature, or verified XXXX XXXX of enrollment. XXXX has instead accepted the merchants standard " refund policy '' sheet as a substitute for actual authorization. XXXX Account XXXX & Requested Remedy : I have closed this XXXX account and paid my legitimate balance in full. I have withheld the {$170.00} stemming entirely from this documented fraud. I am willing to defend my credit profile on principle, as XXXX has failed in its regulatory duty to protect me from predatory, unauthorized billing.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation