Consumer complaint received 2026-03-10 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: FL

Complaint narrative:
Complaint Against : Citibank Product : Credit Card Issue : Improper denial and closure of billing dispute involving fraudulent impersonation scam I am submitting this complaint regarding the handling of a billing dispute by Citibank concerning an unauthorized credit card charge of {$3600.00} posted on XX/XX/XXXX by the merchant XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX IA XXXX This transaction resulted from a fraudulent impersonation scam in which individuals falsely represented themselves as customer service representatives for XXXX XXXX. Incident Description : On XX/XX/XXXX, while traveling abroad in XXXX, I searched online for a customer service phone number for XXXX XXXX because I needed to change an existing flight reservation. I called a phone number that appeared to be associated with XXXX XXXX and spoke with an individual who represented himself as an airline representative. I explained that I needed to change my flight. The individual stated that he could process the change and informed me that a temporary ticket transaction would occur and be immediately refunded as part of the ticket change process. Shortly afterward, I received emails confirming a supposed refund of approximately {$3700.00}, which made the transaction appear legitimate. I later discovered that the individuals involved were not affiliated with XXXX XXXX. Later that same day, I discovered three charges on my credit card : {$3700.00} from the same fraudulent merchant sequence {$3600.00} from XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX {$100.00} legitimate ticket change fee from XXXX XXXX After returning to the United States XXXX I contacted XXXX XXXX directly through their official customer service number. XXXX XXXX confirmed that : The individuals I spoke with were not XXXX XXXX representatives The interaction was a scam involving impersonation No airline tickets were issued for the disputed charges The only legitimate charge was the {$100.00} ticket change fee Dispute With Citibank : I immediately reported the incident to Citibank and opened disputes for both the {$3700.00} and {$3600.00} charges. Citibank provisionally credited both transactions while the investigation was pending. However, Citibank ultimately resolved the {$3700.00} dispute in my favor, while denying the {$3600.00} dispute, even though both transactions clearly arose from the same fraudulent event. Citibank later closed the investigation stating that they did not receive a complete response to their request for additional information. This statement is incorrect. I provided a detailed written response addressing every item requested by Citibank, including : A full description of the fraudulent impersonation Explanation of how the transaction occurred Confirmation that no goods or services were received Attempts to contact the merchant Documentation showing emails from the fraudulent party promising refunds No legitimate transaction occurred with the merchant XXXX XXXX. I did not knowingly authorize any purchase with this merchant, and no services, tickets, contracts, or deliverables were provided. In addition, the merchant descriptor XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX IA does not correspond to any identifiable legitimate travel agency. The transaction appears consistent with a temporary or high-risk merchant account commonly used in travel impersonation scams. Citibank instructed me to contact the merchant directly to resolve the issue. This is not a reasonable resolution because the merchant itself is part of the fraudulent scheme. Concerns Regarding the Investigation : The facts strongly indicate that this transaction resulted from fraudulent impersonation and should have been treated as an unauthorized transaction. The inconsistent outcomeapproving the {$3700.00} charge but denying the {$3600.00} charge from the same eventsuggests the dispute may have been incorrectly categorized as a service dispute rather than fraud under the card network rules of XXXX. If the transaction was improperly classified as a services not rendered dispute instead of an unauthorized transaction, that could explain why Citibank claimed documentation was insufficient even though the evidence clearly demonstrates that the charge resulted from fraud. I believe Citibank failed to conduct a reasonable investigation as required under the Fair Credit Billing Act ( Regulation Z ). Additional Documentation To support this complaint, I am providing the following documentation : XXXX XX/XX/XXXX denial letter My written responses addressing Citibanks information requests Emails from the fraudulent party promising refunds Transaction records showing the related charges

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 monetary relief