Consumer complaint received 2026-05-28 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: CA

Complaint narrative:
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, California XXXX XXXX XXXX Via Fax : XXXX Citibank XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Department Re : Supplemental Chargeback Dispute and Request for Reconsideration Dispute Claim No. : XXXX Merchant : XXXX XXXX Transaction Date : XX/XX/year> Amount in Dispute : {$2500.00} FORMAL DISPUTE, BREACH OF CONTRACT COMPLAINT, MISREPRESENTATION CLAIM, AND DEMAND FOR CHARGEBACK REVERSAL To Whom It May Concern : I respectfully submit this Supplemental Dispute Statement in support of my pending chargeback claim regarding XXXX XXXX and XXXX software and services purchased on XX/XX/year>. This submission provides additional facts demonstrating that the merchant failed to provide goods and services as represented, failed to honor material contractual commitments, and failed to deliver the functionality, transparency, and account-management services that formed the basis of my purchasing decision. FACTUAL BACKGROUND On XX/XX/year>, I purchased XXXX XXXX 's automated trading software and related services after representations that the company would provide a professionally managed automated trading solution capable of operating through supported trading platforms and XXXXXXXX XXXX On XX/XX/year>, I was onboarded by representatives identified as XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, who assisted with connecting the XXXX XXXX dashboard, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX accounts, and XXXX software. Throughout the onboarding process, I understood that XXXX XXXX would actively manage the automated trading strategies, software integrations, account monitoring, and related technical operations associated with the program. Initially, certain accounts reflected positive performance. However, concerns quickly arose regarding the lack of transparency surrounding the operation of the automated trading strategies. Although I had access to the company 's dashboard, I did not have sufficient visibility into the actual XXXX chart activity, strategy XXXX, or operational controls governing the automated system. Despite repeated requests, access to critical monitoring information was delayed until approximately XX/XX/year>. After obtaining access, additional concerns emerged regarding the functionality and reliability of the services being provided. MATERIAL SERVICE FAILURES On or about XX/XX/year>, I observed that the XXXX XXXX dashboard ceased properly updating profit-and-loss information and account performance metrics. As a result, I was forced to independently access XXXX and other account portals in an attempt to determine actual account status and trading activity. This dashboard reporting function was represented as a key component of the service offering and was relied upon as part of my purchasing decision. During the same period, I discovered that XXXX separate {$50000.00} prop-firm challenge accounts had failed. Based upon the account-management representations made during onboarding, the risk controls allegedly in place, and the operational assurances provided by company representatives, such failures were unexpected and inconsistent with my understanding of the service being provided. I immediately contacted XXXX XXXX seeking clarification regarding : XXXX. Dashboard reporting failures ; XXXX. XXXX trading strategy management ; XXXX. Account-risk controls ; XXXX. Account performance results ; XXXX. Operational transparency ; XXXX. Refund eligibility ; and XXXX. The performance and protection representations described during the sales process. To date, the concerns remain substantially unresolved. BREACH OF CONTRACT XXXX XXXX induced the transaction through representations regarding software functionality, account management, platform compatibility, operational oversight, and refund protections. The merchant further represented that purchasers would be protected by a money-back guarantee. Despite timely requests for relief and notification of the substantial performance deficiencies described herein, the merchant failed and/or refused to provide the requested refund. Such refusal constitutes a material breach of the contractual terms and representations under which the transaction was entered. GOODS AND SERVICES NOT AS DESCRIBED The goods and services received materially differed from the representations made during the sales process because : Critical platform functionality was unreliable or unavailable ; Dashboard reporting ceased functioning properly ; Transparency regarding strategy operation was inadequate ; Trading activity could not be independently verified as represented ; Account-management expectations were not fulfilled ; Performance-monitoring tools were deficient ; The overall service experience failed to conform to the representations relied upon when purchasing the product. These deficiencies substantially impaired the value of the transaction and rendered the product and services materially different from what was advertised and sold. MISREPRESENTATION AND DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES The facts outlined above raise substantial concerns that material representations regarding functionality, compatibility, transparency, management oversight, operational performance, and refund protections may have been inaccurate, incomplete, or misleading. Consumers purchasing automated trading software are entitled to rely upon the representations made during the sales process. When a merchant markets software as a managed automated solution while failing to provide the represented functionality, transparency, and contractual protections, the resulting transaction XXXX constitute a materially misrepresented sale warranting chargeback protection and consumer remedies. APPLICABLE CONSUMER PROTECTION AUTHORITIES This dispute is submitted pursuant to and protected by : Fair Credit Billing Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1666 et seq. ) Providing consumers the right to dispute billing errors involving goods or services not delivered as agreed, not received as represented, or materially deficient. Truth in Lending Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq. ) and Regulation Z Requiring fair dispute resolution procedures and protecting cardholders against improper charges involving defective, misrepresented, or undelivered goods and services. Federal Trade Commission Act ( 15 U.S.C. 45 ) Prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts and practices in commerce, including material misrepresentations regarding products, services, performance capabilities, and contractual guarantees. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) Consumer Billing Protections Requiring fair and reasonable investigation of disputed transactions and protection of consumers from improper billing practices. REQUEST FOR RELIEF Accordingly, I respectfully request that Citibank : XXXX. Reopen and fully investigate Claim No. XXXX ; 2. Review all onboarding communications, dashboard records, merchant correspondence, account-performance records, refund requests, screenshots, and related evidence ; XXXX. Determine that the disputed transaction constitutes goods and services not as described, breach of contract, and material misrepresentation ; XXXX. Reverse the disputed charge of {$2500.00} ; XXXX. Preserve all rights available under the Fair Credit Billing Act, Truth in Lending Act, Regulation Z, applicable card-network dispute procedures, and all other consumer- protection laws ; and XXXX. Provide written confirmation of the results of the investigation. DECLARATION I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States and the XXXX of California that the statements contained herein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and based upon documentation, communications, and records currently available to me. Respectfully Submitted, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, California XXXX XXXX XXXX Enclosures Citibank XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Onboarding Records Dashboard Screenshots Refund Requests XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Documentation Marketing Materials and Advertisements Additional Supporting Evidence This version is stronger than the original because it incorporates the onboarding history, delayed access issues, dashboard failures, failed prop-firm accounts, unresolved support concerns, breach-of-contract arguments, and federal consumer-protection authorities while maintaining a professional legal tone.

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