Consumer complaint received 2026-04-27 00:00:00
Product: Credit card — General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Other features, terms, or problems — Problem with rewards from credit card
Company: AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
I am writing in response to American Expresss letter dated XX/XX/year>, signed by XXXX XXXX of the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. That letter denied credits totaling {$200.00} across two separate matters. I write to correct factual errors in American Expresss response, challenge both denials as legally and factually unsupported, and request that the CFPB take note of the systemic issues each denial reflects. As a threshold matter, American Expresss letter misidentifies the amount in dispute for the XXXX in the XXXX offer. The credits at issue are not {$200.00}. The offer promised 10 % back on qualifying purchases. The underlying transactions total approximately {$200.00}, making the credits owed approximately {$20.00}. American Expresss letter conflates the transaction total with the credit amount, which suggests the response was not the product of careful review of the account or the offer terms. Regarding the XXXX in the XXXX offer, American Expresss denial rests entirely on the assertion that the merchants where my purchases were made were not participating locations. I dispute that characterization and, more fundamentally, I dispute that American Express can enforce a merchant participation requirement it can not substantiate and has actively refused to document. American Express directed me to amexdining.com/us as the designated resource for verifying participating merchants. That website currently displays the message : Amex Dining is currently on pause and will return soon. It provides no merchant list, no archived participation data, and no actionable information whatsoever. American Express has not provided me, through any channel, with a list of participating merchants, an explanation of how participation is determined, or any documentation that would allow me to independently assess whether my specific transactions were eligible or ineligible. I have no way to verify American Expresss claim that these merchants did not participate, and American Express has made no good faith effort to provide me with the information necessary to evaluate or challenge that determination. That is not a legitimate basis for denial. It is a refusal to operate transparently. American Express can not hold cardmembers to a participation standard while simultaneously operating a broken verification tool and refusing to produce any supporting documentation when the denial is challenged. My purchases were made at sit-down restaurant locations in XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX during the stated offer period, on a Gold Card to which the XXXX in the XXXX offer was enrolled. The purchases facially satisfy the offers stated criteria. American Express has provided no documentation, no merchant list, and no reasoned basis for why these specific locations did not qualify. Citing merchant participation terms while withholding the information necessary for a cardmember to verify or rebut that determination, and then denying credits to cardmembers who relied in good faith on the offer, constitutes an unfair and deceptive act or practice within the meaning of 12 U.S.C. 5531 and 5536. I request that the CFPB investigate whether American Express is systematically applying this tactic to deny Amex Offer credits at scale, and whether American Expresss practice of citing unverifiable merchant participation requirements while refusing to disclose participation criteria constitutes a deceptive practice warranting enforcement action. Regarding the XXXX XXXX dispute involving the {$30.00} charge on my XXXX XXXX ending in XXXX, American Expresss denial is similarly deficient. American Express states that the dispute was resolved in favor of the merchant based on documentation the merchant provided, and directs me to pursue the matter independently. That resolution does not withstand scrutiny given the specific circumstances of this transaction. I am an active-duty United States servicemember currently XXXX overseas. Prior to my XXXX, I canceled my XXXX XXXX membership. The charge at issue appears to reflect a subscription-based auto-ship order that continued to process after my XXXX membership was canceled. The shipment was sent to a former address I no longer occupy as a direct consequence of my military XXXX. I had no meaningful access to the XXXX account to intercept, cancel, or redirect the order. The merchants documentation showing a completed shipment does not establish that I authorized this charge or received the goods. Delivery to a former address of a XXXX servicemember who had already canceled the underlying membership is not a valid basis for resolving a dispute in the merchants favor. My status as an active-duty servicemember is protected under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, 50 U.S.C. 3901 et seq. The circumstances giving rise to this charge, specifically the continuation of a subscription order after account cancellation and delivery to a vacated address during an overseas XXXX, reflect exactly the kind of consumer harm that warrants heightened scrutiny when the affected party is a XXXX servicemember. American Expresss cursory resolution in favor of the merchant without accounting for these facts reflects a failure of its dispute investigation obligations under Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. 1026.13, which requires a reasonable investigation of billing error claims.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation