Consumer complaint received 2025-07-31 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: CA

Complaint narrative:
I am disputing a charge of {$440.00} made to my Citibank credit card on XX/XX/year>, for a hotel reservation through XXXX. 

This was not a case of buyers remorse or misunderstanding refund policiesit was a materially deceptive transaction. I paid for a three-night hotel stay, but received nothing usable unless I paid additional hundreds of dollars in hidden, mandatory fees that were never disclosed before payment. 

XXXX displayed Prices include all fees throughout the reservation process. Only after payment was completed, did XXXX reveal in the confirmation email ( see attached ) an additional $ XXXX per night in mandatory XXXX XXXX XXXX  and service fees. These brought the true cost to nearly double the amount that I had authorized. When I contacted XXXX shortly after the booking, they refused a refund, claiming that I was clearly shown that the reservation was non-refundable, but failing to clarify which information provided during the booking process they considered binding as they had obviously violated the Prices include all fees stipulation without batting an eyelid. 

I disputed the transaction with Citibank and submitted video documentation, screenshots, chat transcripts, and a reference to the FTCs Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees ( 16 C.F.R. 464 ), which XXXX clearly violated ( this documentation is summarized in the attached file Evidence of Deceptive Booking Practices by XXXX - CFPB filing.pdf ). 

Citibank denied my dispute XXXX times, never engaging with my evidence. Their first XXXX denials relied on an irrelevant standard, claiming that I failed to provide a valid credit slip or proof that the merchant had agreed to a refund ( see attached Citibank XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX letters ). This ignored that I filed under goods/services not as described, which does not require merchant cooperation under Regulation Z. 

After I escalated to the Executive Response Unit on XX/XX/XXXX ( see attached ), Citibank abandoned that rationale and instead claimed the transaction was simply non-refundable ( see XX/XX/XXXX letter ). This new logic was just as flawedit still failed to address the fact that I was never sold the service advertised, but rather a non-cancelable placeholder that required further undisclosed payments to use. 

Even worse, Citibanks final determination relied on a boilerplate response from XXXX that made generic claims about disclosure practices. XXXX submitted no screenshots, no reference to my specific booking, and no rebuttal to my detailed evidence or video. Citibank accepted this at face value, demanded no case-specific proof from the merchant, and then dismissed my dispute based on that unsupported assertion. 

Citibanks handling of this case shows shifting standards, inconsistent logic, and procedural bad faith, and its actions effectively enabled a deceptive billing scheme. By ignoring clear evidence and invoking policy over substance, they willfully neglected their duty to protect cardholders from merchant fraudand instead shielded a vendor that misrepresented price, violated federal disclosure rules, and failed to deliver the promised service.

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