Consumer complaint received 2026-04-27 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: TX

Complaint narrative:
I am filing a complaint against Citi, which issues Dillards XXXX Mastercard, for its handling and repeated denial of a billing dispute and its failure to conduct a reasonable investigation. Citi has denied my dispute multiple times, citing the reason that merchandise was not returned, based on the merchants response. This determination is incorrect because the transaction was for a repair service, not the purchase of merchandise. This misclassification persisted even after I clarified the nature of the transaction and submitted additional evidence. This charge was for a repair service on my personal device that I had for a year ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ), which involved installing components into my existing phone. There is no standalone merchandise to return. Reversing the service would require disassembling the device and could cause further damage. Timeline of Events : * XX/XX/year> : I opened the original dispute. * XX/XX/year> : Dispute denied ( merchandise was not returned ). * I filed an appeal and clarified that the charge was for a service, not merchandise. * XX/XX/year> : Appeal denied for the same reason. * On the same day, I contacted customer service and was told no new information had been provided, despite submitting additional evidence showing progressive deterioration of the device after the repair. * Later that week, on XX/XX/year>, I contacted Citi again, and a new dispute was opened. The representative documented that the charge was for a phone repair service. * XX/XX/year> : Dispute denied again for the same reason. * XX/XX/year> : I was informed the case was closed as a duplicate. * XX/XX/year> : I spoke with a supervisor who stated the case would be reopened and indicated there was no way to properly classify the dispute within their system. Evidence Submitted : I provided substantial documentation, including : * Independent diagnostic findings from a XXXX-authorized repair provider confirming the use of non-XXXX parts and improper repair practices * Photographic evidence showing progressive damage after the repair * A police report related to the device This evidence demonstrates that the service was not performed as described and resulted in further damage. Additionally, a separate financial institution reviewed substantially similar documentation related to this same merchant and service and issued a refund in my favor. This suggests that the evidence provided is sufficient to support my claim and raises concern that Citi did not meaningfully evaluate the materials submitted. Nature of Complaint : Citi : * Repeatedly misclassified a service dispute as a merchandise return. * Failed to meaningfully review or address new evidence * Relied on an inapplicable merchant response * Closed or denied disputes as duplicates despite updated information * Indicated an inability to properly classify the dispute I am concerned this does not reflect a reasonable investigation of a billing error.

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