Consumer complaint received 2026-04-22 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: CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION
State: WA

Complaint narrative:
XX/XX/year> : Order Placed from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX for the amount of {$1100.00} with XXXX Card. XX/XX/year> : Package Delivered to correct home address. Package is sealed, item is tampered with. Item was replaced by a brick. Goods and services not received. XX/XX/year> : XXXX contact with XXXX XXXX Customer Support to give information to solve issue. XXXX XXXX Customer Support opened case. XX/XX/year> : I received an email from XXXX XXXX stating that a refund claim had been filed. I was informed to return the incorrect item to get the refund, however, no shipping label was sent from XXXX XXXX. XX/XX/year> : I decided to contact XXXX XXXX Customer Support again for some sort of update. Here, I was told that I was given incorrect information about the return. That XXXX XXXX 's internal return team replied back to me giving me incorrect information regarding the return of the item. As well as being told to return the item via my local XXXX XXXX, and that a refund would be processed. XX/XX/year> : Following instructions from XXXX XXXX Customer Support. I attempted to return the incorrect item, in the box, and shipping box as well, to my local XXXX XXXX. Here, I was told by in person employees that they could not accept the return because it was ordered on XXXX XXXX 's website, and not purchased inside the store. I was given the incorrect item back, the XXXX XXXX employees kept the packing box. XX/XX/year> : I contact XXXX XXXX Customer Support to get some answers on the matter, and was denied to even return the item. Speaking with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX with another agent, I was told that the item is ineligible for any return as it was sold and shipped by XXXX XXXX and not XXXX XXXX, even though the product page for the item had clearly stated 'Sold by XXXX XXXX '. The same agent then claimed that the item I had ordered can not be returned because XXXX XXXX 's return policy prevents XXXX XXXX items from being returned. This policy, is specifically for items with lithium-ion batteries over XXXX watt-hours such as laptops, and flammable gases. The item I was supposed to receive does not use a battery or any flammable gases. After pointing out again, that I received a brick and no electronics in the first place. I was then told that the item would be able to be reshipped after I was told a refund would be processed after I returned the item. Pointing out that the XXXX XXXX employees at my local XXXX XXXX had taken the shipping package led to the case finally being escalated. XX/XX/year> : XXXX XXXX Customer Support emails me asking for more photos of the package, label, and the tampered item. Within XXXX hours of my response email, adding more photos and context, I was emailed again by XXXX XXXX Customer Support stating that they are unable to provide a refund, and encourage to contact local law enforcement regarding a package that arrived sealed. XX/XX/year> : Dispute started with XXXX on the basis of a missing/tampered item. XX/XX/year> : XXXX asks for more evidence to be shown as XXXX XXXX responded. Evidence shown, including photos of the package, label, tampered item, conversations between myself and XXXX XXXX Customer Support in which support agents give conflicting information, as well as clear points that the store page for the item stated XXXX by XXXX XXXX '. XX/XX/year> : XXXX resolves the case in XXXX XXXX 's favor based on the validity of the transaction and their return policy. XXXX states that after XXXX XXXX had shown shipping details, the transaction had been found to be valid. The transaction was valid, I did place the order. However, the item I had paid for was not the item I received. I received a brick. After XXXX XXXX then presented terms of service of their return policy, XXXX stated they can not resolve the issue, purely based on XXXX XXXX 's terms of service. Despite providing a multitude of evidence and information of the merchant 's failure to resolve the issue, XXXX did not evaluate whether the goods and services provided matched the actual transaction. Even after evidence had shown the goods and services did not match the actual transaction. Instead, XXXX denied the dispute based on the merchant 's return policy rather than addressing the core issue at hand. That being, the merchandise received was not as described. I would like to request a review of whether this dispute was handled under the correct category and in accordance with applicable consumer protection standards.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation