Consumer complaint received 2024-11-30 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: FinCo Services Inc DBA Current
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
Denial of Chargeback Claim Misleading XXXX XXXX Summary of the Issue : I am filing a complaint against Current Bank for denying my chargeback request related to a purchase made for a XXXX XXXX XXXX  from the website XXXX. The product was marketed as beginner-friendly, but it was not understandable for a new trader like myself, which goes against the advertised promise. Despite providing substantial evidence of misleading advertising and poor-quality service, my bank has denied my claim, leaving me with no recourse. I believe this decision is unjust and warrants review, particularly in light of the companys own refund policy and the additional admission that further training was required. 

1. Initial Purchase and Misleading Advertising : I purchased a fXXXX XXXX XXXX  from XXXX which was advertised as beginner-friendly. The FAQ section on the companys website clearly states : Is This Okay for Beginners? 
Yes, new and seasoned traders are welcomed. 

However, upon starting the program, I found that the material was far too advanced and provided no foundational instruction for beginners. The videos were disorganized and lacked in-depth explanations of key concepts such as liquidity, which were essential for understanding the material. 
2. Request for Refund and Denial from Merchant : Upon realizing that the bootcamp did not meet the advertised standard for beginners, I requested a refund from the company. Instead of granting the refund, they offered me an additional mentorship course valued at {$990.00}, stating : I am willing to place you in my mentorship coursedesigned for beginners for 60 days and the bootcamp will make sense to you after. 

This statement clearly implies that the bootcamp I initially purchased was not suitable for beginners as advertised. The companys attempt to sell me an additional course to clarify material that was supposed to be understandable from the start is an admission that their product did not align with its original claims. 
3. Refund Policy : The companys refund policy is restrictive and only offers refunds within 24 hours for technical issues, such as problems downloading the content or damaged files : Refund Policy : We understand that sometimes purchases may not meet your expectationsallows for a full refund within 24 hours of purchase date under the following conditions : item damaged, issues with downloading, not loading, etc. 

However, I am requesting a refund based on misleading advertising, which was not addressed in their refund policy. I should not be held to this restrictive refund window when the product fundamentally did not meet the expectations set by the advertising. 
4. Chargeback Request with Current Bank After being denied a refund by the merchant, I filed a chargeback request with [ Current Bank ], providing the above evidence, including : Screenshots of the misleading advertising on the merchants website. 
Email communication where the merchant indirectly admits the bootcamp was not suitable for beginners. 
A copy of the refund policy showing the restrictive nature of the refund process. 
Despite providing clear evidence of false advertising and a legitimate basis for a refund, [ Your Banks Name ] denied my chargeback request, leaving me with no recourse to recover my funds.

Reasons Why the Chargeback Should Be Approved : 1. Misleading Advertising : The product was advertised as being suitable for beginners, but it clearly was not. The merchant themselves admitted that I needed additional training to understand the content ( email correspondence attached ), which constitutes deceptive advertising.

2. Unjust Denial Based on Limited Refund Policy : The merchants restrictive refund policy does not cover situations involving misleading advertising, which is a clear consumer protection issue. I believe the bank should have taken this into account when reviewing my chargeback request.

3. Failure to Uphold Consumer Rights : Current Bank has failed to uphold my consumer rights by siding with the merchant despite the overwhelming evidence of a misrepresented product and refusal to grant a fair refund. Chargebacks are meant to protect consumers from situations exactly like this, and the denial of my claim is both unjust and contrary to these protections.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation