Consumer complaint received 2026-07-14 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:
CFPB Complaint Company : Citibank , N.A . 
Product : Credit Card Issue : Billing Dispute Investigation Complaint I respectfully request that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau review Citibanks handling of my billing dispute concerning defective merchandise purchased with my Citibank credit card. 
This complaint is not about whether I authorized the purchase. I acknowledge that I made the purchase and that the charge itself is valid. 
This complaint concerns whether Citibank conducted a reasonable investigation into my dispute involving defective merchandise that failed to perform its intended function as advertised, and whether Citibank fairly considered all relevant evidence before denying my claim. 
Background On XX/XX/year>, I purchased a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX for {$6900.00}. 
The printer was delivered on XX/XX/year>. 
Because the equipment required assembly, stand installation, software installation, ink and film loading, and printer configuration before operation, setup took several days to complete. 
The printers first production print occurred on XX/XX/year>. 
During its first operational use, the printer failed to perform as intended. The XXXX XXXX  transfer would not properly release from the B-film or adhere correctly to multiple application surfaces, resulting in unusable finished products. 
The defect was discovered during the printers initial operational use. 
Extensive Efforts to Resolve the Problem Before requesting a refund or filing a dispute, I made every reasonable effort to work directly with the merchant to resolve the issue. 
Between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/year>, I participated in numerous troubleshooting sessions with XXXX technical support team. 
These efforts included : Multiple remote access sessions in which XXXX technicians connected directly to my computer. 
Numerous adjustments to printer settings by XXXX technicians. 
Submission of photographs and videos demonstrating the defect. 
A final troubleshooting session lasting approximately XXXX hours. 
Despite these extensive efforts, the printer never produced a usable result. 
Only after these troubleshooting efforts failed did I request authorization to return the printer for a full refund. 
This was not buyers remorse or a change of mind. I invested significant time attempting to make the printer function before requesting authorization to return it. 
Merchant Admissions On XX/XX/year>, XXXX acknowledged in writing : The B-film adhesion/release issue you are experiencing is not a known problem reported by other users, indicating that the problem exists only in your device and is not a systemic issue with the printer model itself. 
In the same communication, XXXX further acknowledged : You have conducted extensive remote troubleshooting with our technical team, and unfortunately, these efforts have not been able to resolve your issue. 
These written admissions establish that : XXXX knew exactly what defect was being reported. 
XXXX acknowledged the issue appeared unique to my specific printer. 
XXXX acknowledged that extensive troubleshooting had already occurred. 
XXXX acknowledged that those troubleshooting efforts had failed. 
Return Request After troubleshooting proved unsuccessful, I requested authorization to return the defective printer for a full refund. 
A return for a full refund was never authorized. 
Instead, XXXX repeatedly requested additional troubleshooting. 
Months later, after Citibank contacted XXXX regarding my dispute, XXXX suggested that I ship the printer back. However, XXXX did not commit in writing to : providing a full refund ; paying return shipping ; specifying inspection timeframes ; or explaining the conditions under which a refund would actually be issued. 
Had XXXX accepted the return of the defective printer for a full refund when requested, this dispute would never have been necessary. 
Concerns Regarding Citibanks Investigation Throughout the dispute process, I submitted documentation including : a detailed timeline, photographs demonstrating the defect, merchant correspondence, documentation of extensive troubleshooting, and XXXX  written acknowledgements regarding the defect. 
I also emailed video evidence showing the printers failure during troubleshooting. After being told the videos could not be opened, I asked how that evidence could be submitted, but I did not receive instructions for submitting the videos. 
Despite this documentation, Citibank denied the dispute. 
The denial letters raise several concerns. 
One determination stated that Citibank was unable to identify or determine that a billing error had occurred. When I questioned that determination, Citibank acknowledged that the dispute had been coded incorrectly and reopened the dispute.

The second denial stated that I had possessed the merchandise for an extended period before discovering the defect. 
However, the documented timeline shows : XX/XX/XXXX XXXX received. 
XX/XX/XXXX First operational use. 
XX/XX/XXXX Defect discovered during first use. 
XX/XX/XXXX Return requested after multiple unsuccessful troubleshooting sessions. 
This timeline is not consistent with the conclusion that the defect was discovered only after an extended period of ownership. 
Additionally, Citibanks XXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/year> determination states : We have investigated your dispute involving a service ( s ) which was not performed. Since the merchant was willing to provide the service ( s ), we are unable to assist you further. 
My dispute did not involve services that were not performed. 
My dispute concerned defective merchandise that failed to perform its intended function as advertised. 
This language raises a concern that the dispute may not have been investigated under the correct dispute category.

Request for CFPB Review I respectfully request that the CFPB review whether Citibank conducted a reasonable investigation by determining : Whether the dispute was investigated under the correct dispute category.

Whether Citibank considered the complete timeline demonstrating that the defect was discovered during the printers first operational use.

Whether Citibank considered XXXX written admissions acknowledging both the defect and unsuccessful troubleshooting. 
Whether Citibank evaluated whether XXXX ever actually offered to accept the return of the printer for a full refund. 
Whether Citibanks conclusions were supported by the evidence contained within the dispute file.

I am not asking the CFPB to determine whether the printer is defective. 
Rather, I respectfully request that the CFPB review whether Citibank fulfilled its obligation to conduct a fair, complete, and reasonable investigation of my billing dispute.

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