Consumer complaint received 2025-11-25 00:00:00
Product: Payday loan, title loan, personal loan, or advance loan — Installment loan
Issue: Problem with additional add-on products or services — 
Company: Affirm Holdings, Inc
State: WI

Complaint narrative:
Loan ID : XXXX Dear Affirm Dispute Department, I am formally resubmitting my dispute and filing this as a brand-new CFPB complaint because my previous CFPB complaint was closed with the explanation that Affirm was still in the midst of reviewing my dispute. I waited, as instructed, for Affirms final decision. Affirm has now completed its review and denied my dispute in favor of the merchant.I am formally resubmitting my dispute against XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX, and I am forwarding all relevant documentation and evidence for review. My previous dispute was denied in favor of the merchant on the grounds that they complied with the return policy stated on their website. However, I want to make it absolutely clear that my dispute has nothing to do with a return policy or refund request under any warranty conditions. This case involves fraud, deception, and false advertising by the merchant, who knowingly sold me a used and out-of-warranty product as new, misrepresented the manufacturers warranty, and then involved unauthorized third parties in an attempt to conceal their fraudulent actions. In XX/XX/XXXX, I purchased a XXXX XXXX XXXX  ( New ) XXXX XXXX through Affirm from XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX ( refer to Exhibit 19 ). This XXXX XXXX contains 4 parts : the controller, the mat, the pen and the pillow. The product listing clearly stated that this was a new XXXX model, described as the latest technology with new XXXX, and included a two-year manufacturers warranty. I did not question the transaction because XXXX XXXX explicitly states on their website that XXXX XXXX is the ONLY distributor in the US offering the brand new XXXX XXXX model with several ALL NEW XXXX, and that Also, beware of 3rd-party sellers on XXXX, XXXX, and other marketplaces claiming to sell new XXXX devices . Only XXXX XXXX has access to the latest XXXX XXXX devices that come directly from the manufacturer in XXXX. ( Exhibit 20 ). This statement gave me confidence that I was purchasing from an exclusive, authorized U.S. distributor. However, these claims have been directly disproven by the actual manufacturer ( XXXX ), as shown in Exhibits 5 and 6, which confirm that XXXX XXXX no longer works with XXXX XXXX and that the XXXX XXXX model they advertise does not exist. At the time of purchase, I had no reason to question the validity of this description. The total amount of the transaction was financed through Affirm. On XX/XX/XXXX, while I was out of town, I received two callsone from my partner, XXXX, and another from the hotel manager of the property I was staying atinforming me that there had been a leak in my hotel room. The manager told me that a medical device had gotten soaked and suggested that I contact the merchant I purchased it from to determine whether it needed to be replaced. Immediately after that call, I contacted XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX, and explained the situation based on the information I had received from the hotel. XXXX XXXX responded by quoting me the price for purchasing a brand new XXXX mat. I asked if there was any way to test my mat before purchasing an entirely new one. Between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, I had several exchanges with XXXX XXXX regarding this issue. When I returned to the hotel and was able to inspect the situation myself, I realized the hotel managers assumption had been incorrect. There was indeed a leak, but the only item that had been sitting on the floor at the time was the carrying bag for the XXXX mat ( not any of the 4 parts of the XXXX system listed above ). The bag had become completely saturated, and the manager mistakenly assumed that the device was inside. In reality, the mat itself had been laid out across furniture, and only the bottom 3 inches of one corner had become slightly damp because it was hanging off the furniture and came into contact with the wet carrying bag. The controller, pen, and pillow were not in the hotel room at the time of the leak and were therefore unaffected. Its also important to note that I had previously expressed concerns about this system not working properly, because I could not feel any sensations or response from the mat when using it ( Exhibit 7 ). This shows that I already had doubts about the mats functionality long before the leak occurred. After the XX/XX/XXXX incident, I reviewed the user manual ( Exhibit 13 ) for the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, which specifically describes cleaning the mat with a damp ragclearly indicating that a small amount of moisture would not harm the product. After reviewing the manual and contacting both XXXX XXXX and the U.S. representative for XXXX, they each confirmed that minor dampnesssuch as that caused by touching a wet surface or by user perspirationis not a concern and would not damage the device ( Exhibit 11 ). However, XXXX XXXX told me that if I was concerned, I could send my mat in for testing. They provided me with a shipping address belonging to XXXX XXXX, who they identified as a XXXX repair expert. Relying on their representation, I shipped my mat to XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX ( Exhibit 3 ). After that, I did not hear back for over two weeks, so I followed up with XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX, asking for a status update ( Exhibit 3 ). XXXX XXXX replied that same day, confirming that my mat had been received and was currently being checked. After hearing nothing more for several weeks, I followed up again on XX/XX/XXXX, asking for another update ( Exhibit 3 ). On XX/XX/XXXX, I finally received a message from XXXX stating that she noticed the carrying bag was wet and wanted to confirm whether any of the other componentssuch as the mat or controllerhad also gotten wet. I immediately responded, explaining that the bag had been submerged, but that the controller, pen, and pillow were not even in the building, and that the mat was only slightly damp in one corner due to contact with the wet bag. XXXX replied that all of the equipment was defective. I questioned this conclusion, since three of the four components were nowhere near the leak and the mat only had a tiny damp spot on one edge. Despite my explanations, she insisted that the mat was water damaged and not under warranty. XXXX then stated that the manufacturer of the mat had instructed her to send it to XXXX for further testing because of safety concerns, but that she could not do so due to logistical costs. Instead, she offered to sell me a discounted mat and controller or to ship my system back to me ( Exhibit 4 ). Initially, I agreed to purchase a replacement since I was told my mat could not be returned for safety reasons. XXXX quoted {$800.00} for a new mat and controller, and XXXX XXXX employee XXXX sent me payment instructions via email. The payment was to be made through XXXX to XXXX personal account, which immediately raised red flags ( Exhibit 9 ). I called XXXX to confirm this was legitimate and expressed that it was very unusual for a business to request payment through a personal XXXX account rather than through the company or a credit card transaction. XXXX became frustrated that I refused to send the money through XXXX, saying she was already giving me a big discount. At this point, I became extremely suspicious. On XX/XX/XXXX, I called XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) again and told her I would not be sending any money via XXXX and that I wanted my original system shipped back to me ( Exhibit 9 ). XXXX then changed her story completelyshe now claimed that my mat had already been sent to XXXX for testing and could not be returned. This was an outright lie, since just three days earlier she had stated that she was not sending it to XXXX because of the cost ( refer back to Exhibit 4 ). Realizing that something was very wrong, I began researching contacts for the actual manufacturer. I eventually found a contact for XXXX XXXX XXXX through the official XXXX U.S. website. I reached out via email and phone, and when I spoke with him, he confirmed that both XXXX XXXX and XXXX were acting fraudulently. XXXX XXXX told me directly that they had been scamming customers by falsely claiming to test, repair, or replace XXXX devices, and that they were not authorized by XXXX in any capacity. He said that they would try to steal my XXXX system and tell me it doesnt work. That was exactly what had happened in my case. XXXX XXXX then forwarded my message to XXXX at XXXX / XXXX XXXX in XXXX ( Exhibit 10 ) and informed me that XXXX had been gathering evidence against XXXX and XXXX XXXX for these same deceptive practices. He told me that XXXX would likely not return my device and was attempting to steal it. Following his advice, I filed a police report against XXXX ( Exhibit 1 ). After law enforcement contacted her, XXXX admitted that she never sent my mat to XXXX and agreed to return it. I emailed XXXX XXXX and told them I would provide a prepaid shipping label so the mat could be returned. I also specifically asked XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) to confirm whether my mat was in XXXX, since she had previously told me that morning that it was. XXXX responded that she did not know and that my question was not relevant to the shipping label ( Exhibit 12 ). It is entirely unacceptable for a merchant to be unableor unwillingto confirm the location of a customers medical device that they themselves instructed me to send for testing. I finally received my XXXX system back on XX/XX/XXXX. I then contacted XXXX XXXX again, provided him with the serial number, and described the product I had received from XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX confirmed that my system was an old XXXX modelnot a new XXXX versionand that the serial number was associated with a previous customer. XXXX from XXXX XXXX also confirmed that this serial number was in a shipment sent to XXXX XXXX to sell over 4 years ago. XXXX XXXX explained that since he is the only authorized distributor of XXXX devices in the United States, all legitimate sales of new XXXX systems pass through him and are recorded in his distribution system. My serial number was not associated with a new saleit was associated with a returned unit that had been shipped to a prior customer through XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX also told me that he had stopped doing business with XXXX XXXX in early XXXX and had not supplied them with any new XXXX systems after that date. This means that when I purchased what was advertised as a New XXXX model from XXXX XXXX in XX/XX/XXXX, it was impossible for them to have received it from the manufacturer. Therefore, XXXX XXXX knowingly sold me a used, returned, and out-of-warranty product while advertising it as new. Following this, I also communicated with XXXX from XXXX XXXX in XXXX ( Exhibit 6 ). She confirmed that the product I purchased was indeed a XXXX model, was no longer under warranty, and that XXXX XXXX had stopped working with XXXX XXXX entirely. She further confirmed that the product XXXX XXXX was advertising on their websitethe XXXX XXXX XXXX model with new XXXXdoes not even exist and is not a real XXXX product. XXXX also confirmed that XXXX never contacted XXXX XXXX about my device, never sent it for repair, and is not authorized to test or sell XXXX devices ( Exhibit 5 ). In addition to this, there are clear and undeniable physical differences between the device I actually received and the one that XXXX XXXX advertised and represented as the new XXXX model at the time of purchase. The system they sold me was visibly the older, outdated model that was featured on The XXXX XXXX XXXX nearly nine years ago ( see Exhibit 15 ). The controller I received is the boxy, heavy version consistent with that older model ( refer to Exhibit 17 for a photo showing the model of device I received ). The genuine, newer models that XXXX XXXX claims to have been sellingthe XXXX model described on their websitefeature a much thinner, modernized controller design that has been standard for the last several years ( refer to Exhibit 16 ). This clear difference in physical design further proves that XXXX XXXX knowingly sold me an outdated and used model while falsely marketing it as the new XXXX version. Most importantly, I have since received an Official Declaration from XXXX XXXX ( Exhibit XXXX ), signed by XXXX XXXX, shareholder within the XXXX company group and Managing Director of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, the main shareholder and intellectual property holder of XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX. In this declaration, XXXX XXXX formally confirms that both XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX are not and have never been authorized dealers, distributors, or resellers for any XXXX or XXXX XXXX, including XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, or XXXX XXXX. She further confirmed that XXXX XXXX only had a temporary purchasing relationship through an independent dealer until the end of XXXX, after which they were no longer supplied with any XXXX or XXXX products. The specific device I purchasedidentified as XXXX XXXX, serial number XXXXwas confirmed to be an original XXXX system produced and sold in XX/XX/XXXX, not a new XXXX or XXXX XXXX model as XXXX XXXX claimed. XXXX XXXX also stated that no such XXXX model has ever been released, and that the only officially updated versions since XXXX are those promoted on QRS.com and QRS-International.com. Finally, XXXX confirmed they have no record of any official service request for my unit from either XXXX XXXX or XXXX XXXX. Based on these findings, XXXX XXXX concluded that my device was resold as a used or pre-owned unit while being falsely marketed as new by XXXX XXXX. Then, on XX/XX/XXXX, I received an email directly from the owner of XXXX XXXX. In that message, he falsely claimed that XXXX was licensed with XXXX, repeated the lie that my device had been sent to XXXX, and threatened to have a lawyer contact me ( Exhibit 14 ). He also continued to insist that my device was water damaged and not under warranty, despite the overwhelming written evidence disproving both claims. It is important to note that Affirm had previously shared my dispute evidence with the owner of XXXX XXXX during my earlier dispute process. As shown in Exhibit 14, the owner directly referenced that information in his email to me and used it to threaten legal action. I responded to him ( Exhibit 8 ) clearly demonstrating that his statements were false and unsupported by any legitimate documentation. At this point, it is clear that XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX  has engaged in a pattern of fraudulent behavior. They advertised and sold a used and out-of-warranty XXXX XXXX mat as a brand-new XXXX model. They misrepresented warranty coverage, directed me to an unauthorized third party ( XXXX XXXX ), lied about testing and shipping procedures, and then attempted to solicit personal payments through XXXX outside of legitimate business channels. When confronted with evidence, the owner resorted to threats and further deception. This situation aligns squarely with Affirms published Dispute Resolution Policy under the category of Product unacceptable the customer claims that a product they received is incorrect, damaged, or doesnt meet the listed product description. In my case, the product I purchased was explicitly advertised as a new XXXX model with a two-year manufacturers warranty and sold through what I believed was an authorized U.S. distributor . Instead, I was shipped a used XXXX device, out of warranty from the outset, with a serial number confirmed by the manufacturer to have been previously sold. The manufacturer also confirmed the seller was not an authorized distributor. These facts directly demonstrate that the product did not match its advertised description, as supported by the documentation and exhibits I have provided ( Exhibits 5, 6, 14, 18 ). According to Affirms policy, this qualifies under legitimate dispute grounds, and I respectfully request that my case be reviewed and resolved accordingly. For these reasons, this is not a return policy or warranty issueit is a case of fraud, false advertising, and consumer deception. All exhibits referenced above have been attached, including manufacturer verification, written correspondence, law enforcement documentation, and communications with XXXX XXXX. I respectfully request that Affirm makes the decision against the merchant, siding with me as the customer. Affirm should not associate themselves with companies like XXXX XXXX.Additionally, I have now filed a separate complaint with the Federal Trade Commission against XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX  and its owner XXXX XXXX for systemic false advertising, fraud, and deceptive trade practices.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation