Consumer complaint received 2026-01-12 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: OK

Complaint narrative:
Amount in dispute : Approximately {$9000.00} - Dates : XXXX XXXX  I am filing this complaint due to Citibanks repeated failure to comply with Regulation Z ( 12 CFR 1026.13 ) in handling multiple billing disputes arising from the same incident and merchant on the same day. Citi has issued multiple vague and conclusory denial letters, failed to conduct a reasonable investigation, and failed to provide written explanations that address the evidence submitted by both parties, as required by law. 


Despite extensive documentation, repeated follow-ups, and clear contradictions in the merchants own evidence, Citi has denied these disputes three times using boilerplate language that does not satisfy Regulation Zs requirements. 

On XX/XX/year>, I made multiple transactions with the merchant XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ). I later disputed these charges on the basis of services not as described, specifically : Technical malfunction during active use ; Delayed or non-real-time balance and outcome visibility ; Merchant admissions of rate limiting during gameplay ; Service performance materially inconsistent with how the service was represented. 


I did not dispute non-delivery of goods. My dispute has consistently and clearly been failure of service performance at the time of use. 

Evidence Provided I provided Citibank with extensive documentation, including : Full merchant support chat transcripts acknowledging rate limiting and delayed updates ; Email correspondence showing attempts to resolve the issue directly with the merchant ; Written merchant acknowledgments of my concerns ; Timeline explanations tying all disputed transactions to the same incident ; Responses rebutting the merchants claims point-by-point. 

I submitted this evidence multiple times, by email and through Citis dispute process, across multiple case IDs.

Despite this, Citibank : Issued multiple denial letters that merely state the merchant provided the service or characterize the issue as quality of service, without analyzing whether the service functioned as represented at the time of use. 

Failed to explain how Citi evaluated conflicting evidence between myself and the merchant, or why the merchants assertions were credited over documented contradictions. 

Ignored the actual dispute category, repeatedly reframing the dispute as non-delivery or quality dissatisfaction rather than services not as described due to technical malfunction. 

Handled identical transactions inconsistently, investigating some while summarily closing others, even though all arose from the same incident on the same day. 

Denied disputes three times using substantively identical, vague letters that do not reference my evidence or the merchants contradictory admissions.

Under 12 CFR 1026.13, when a billing error is alleged, a creditor must : Conduct a reasonable investigation ; and Provide a written explanation of the determination that reflects the evidence reviewed.

Citibanks denial letters fail this standard. They are conclusory, do not address the substance of the dispute, and do not explain how the evidence was evaluated. A statement that a merchant provided the service does not resolve whether the service performed as represented at the time of use, which is the core issue in a services-not-as-described dispute.

I have emailed Citibanks billing disputes department numerous times, responded to merchant submissions case-by-case, and repeatedly requested proper review and explanation. Citi does not acknowledge receipt of evidence submissions and provides no transparency regarding whether evidence is actually reviewed. 

Only after repeated escalation attempts did Citi request additional documentation after already issuing multiple denials. 

I am requesting that Citibank be required to : Conduct a legally compliant reinvestigation of all related disputes under the correct category ( services not as described / failure to perform as represented ) ; Issue a written determination that : Identifies the evidence reviewed from both parties ; Addresses the merchants contradictory admissions ; Explains the factual and legal basis for any decision under Regulation Z ; Apply consistent treatment across all related transactions arising from the same incident. 

Citibanks handling of these disputes demonstrates a systemic failure to comply with Regulation Zs investigation and explanation requirements. The repeated issuance of vague denial letters, despite extensive documentation and clear contradictions in merchant evidence, leaves me with no meaningful avenue for resolution absent regulatory intervention.

I am requesting CFPB assistance to ensure Citibank fulfills its legal obligations

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