Consumer complaint received 2025-06-23 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: AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
I am filing a complaint against American Express ( AmEx ) for mishandling my dispute over a {$4900.00} charge dated XX/XX/year>, for a premium mentorship program offered by XXXX XXXX XXXX. Marketed as a XXXX XXXX experience, the program promised high-touch personal mentorship with specific contractual deliverables. These services were not delivered, and I exercised my contractual right to terminate under Section XXXX of the agreement due to material breach. 

Despite submitting a signed contract between XXXX University and me, detailed evidence of non-delivery, and good-faith refund requests, AmEx denied my chargeback on XX/XX/year>. Their denial relied entirely on a response from XXXX, the payment processor, which stated that all sales are final and claimed services were rendered. However, the actual service provider, XXXX XXXX, never responded to AmExs inquiry. 

XXXX is listed as the XXXX of XXXX ( XXXX ) in AmExs system, but they are not the seller or service provider. In their own XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX disclaims responsibility for product or service quality, stating that disputes over fulfillment are solely between buyer and seller. XXXX role is limited to processing payments. Despite this, AmEx treated XXXX boilerplate response as dispositive while ignoring the actual terms of the agreement and the absence of a response from XXXXXXXX XXXX 

AmEx defaulted to accepting the XXXX position simply because XXXX was the party named on the transaction record, not because they provided meaningful evidence. This procedural shortcut resulted in a denial without substance. The XXXX of XXXX XXXX appear on the billing statement, but that does not transfer contractual responsibility or the burden of proof, especially when the XXXX explicitly states it is not responsible for service delivery. This default stance allowed AmEx to treat something from the XXXX as better than no response from the real merchant, even though XXXX submission did not, and could not, speak to the fulfillment of the contract. 

XXXX rebuttal was procedurally improper and substantively irrelevant. It misrepresented the reason for my refund request by cherry-picking an unrelated email and failed to address the actual service failures. It also relied on generic access logs that reflect platform use, not mentorship or program delivery. XXXX further attempted to enforce its own no refund policy, even though it explicitly lacks the authority to do so under its own platform terms. 

Under the Fair Credit Billing Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1666 ), AmEx is obligated to conduct a fair and reasonable investigation of disputes, including efforts to obtain evidence from the actual merchant responsible for service delivery. By accepting XXXX response, despite their lack of authority and the service providers silence, AmEx failed to meet this legal standard. 

Section XXXX of my contract clearly entitles me to a pro-rata refund if services are terminated following a material breach. That breach occurred when XXXX University failed to provide core program elements, including structured onboarding and access to XXXX XXXX, my designated Client Success XXXX, who was unresponsive for nearly XXXX hours at the programs start. These failures made participation impossible and nullified other contractual provisions. 

Consumers should not be penalized because the actual service provider fails to respond and a third-party processor, who explicitly disclaims involvement in service delivery, submits a generic rebuttal. XXXX decision not only disregards the governing agreement but also undermines the intent of the XXXX Credit Billing Act.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation