Consumer complaint received 2026-01-29 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: JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.
State: NV

Complaint narrative:
Statement of Material Deficiency in Chases Billing Error Process This complaint concerns a clear billing error involving an incorrect amount charged, and Chases failure to conduct a legally adequate investigation before denying the dispute. Chases handling of this matter reflects procedural deficiency, not a reasonable evaluation of evidence. 

The documentary record establishes that the agreed purchase price was {$390.00}. Chase nevertheless denied the dispute and accepted the merchants contradictory assertion without reconciling it against the consumer-facing transaction terms. That failure defeats the purpose of the Fair Credit Billing Act. 



Factual Record On or about XX/XX/year>, a transaction posted in the amount of {$690.00} from XXXX XXXX. 

That amount is not the price I authorized. 

At checkout, the merchants website displayed : Original price : {$690.00} ( struck through ) Discount code applied : XXXX ( - {$300.00} ) Total due : {$390.00} This is not ambiguous. The order summary clearly reflects a contracted checkout total of {$390.00}. 

Upon noticing the discrepancy, I contacted the merchant on XX/XX/year> requesting immediate correction or cancellation so that the order could be properly processed at the advertised promotional price. The merchant failed to provide a substantive response. 

I subsequently submitted a billing dispute to Chase for the {$300.00} overcharge. 

Chase denied the dispute, asserting in substance that the merchant charged the amount agreed to. That conclusion is directly contradicted by the evidence. 



Chases Investigation Was Not Reasonable Under Any Standard This is not a product dissatisfaction dispute. 
This is not a return dispute. 
This is not a delivery dispute. 

This is a pure billing error : an incorrect amount charged versus the price presented and agreed at checkout. 

The evidence demonstrates : The merchant represented the purchase price as {$390.00}. 
The checkout screen confirms the application of a {$300.00} discount. 
The transaction should therefore have been processed for {$390.00}. 

A reasonable investigation requires, at minimum, that Chase : Evaluate the consumers documentary evidence of the agreed price ; and Reconcile that evidence against the merchants assertion. 

Chase instead appears to have accepted the merchants position without independent evaluation. That is not an investigation. That is administrative rubber-stamping. 

Under the Fair Credit Billing Act and Regulation Z, consumers are protected from precisely this outcome : being forced to pay charges in excess of what they agreed to pay. 



The Legal Principle Is Straightforward A consumer is bound by and entitled to rely upon the price presented at the time of offer and acceptance ( i.e., checkout ). A merchant does not have discretion to retroactively redefine the transaction amount after acceptance, nor does a creditor have discretion to disregard clear documentary evidence of the agreed terms. 

If Chases position were correct, any merchant could advertise one price, charge another, and defeat disputes simply by asserting the amount is correct. That is exactly the abuse the FCBA exists to prevent. 



Harm and Risk Created by Chases Conduct Chases deficient process : Leaves me responsible for an unauthorized overcharge Encourages merchants to ignore consumer communications Undermines statutory billing error protections Creates systemic risk if this reflects Chases standard dispute methodology This is not a minor customer service issue. It is a failure of compliance.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation