Consumer complaint received 2026-06-09 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: NM

Complaint narrative:
To : Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Re : Complaint Against Citibank Failure to Investigate Fraud, Regulation E Violation Account ending in : XXXX What happened Between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, my Citibank card was charged XXXX times by XXXX totaling {$420.00}. I filed disputes for all XXXX charges. Citibank investigated under the following case numbers : XXXX XX/XX/XXXX {$22.00} APPROVED, {$22.00} credited XXXX XX/XX/XXXX {$22.00} DENIED XXXX XX/XX/XXXX {$55.00} DENIED XXXX XX/XX/XXXX {$100.00} DENIED XXXX XX/XX/XXXX {$210.00} DENIED These were unauthorized charges from a deceptive online dating scam. I never authorised these specific transactions to a fraudulent site. . XXXX uses XXXXgenerated fake profiles and admits in their Terms of Service that users do not interact with real people. I received no legitimate service. Citibank resolved case XXXX in my favor for {$22.00}, crediting my account and admitting that charge was invalid. However, Citibank denied the other XXXX cases totaling {$400.00} for the exact same merchant and fraud pattern, without a reasonable explanation. This is inconsistent and proves they failed to conduct a proper investigation as required by law. On XXXX. XXXX emailed me stating they would 'resolve the dispute within XXXX hours. ' No resolution occurred. They did not refund the charges and Citibank subsequently denied XXXX of XXXX disputes. This email proves XXXX acknowledged the charges were disputed but failed to act, leaving me to fight Citibank alone. XXXX never intended to refund me they just sent the email to make me drop the dispute. I believe CFPB calls that deceptive practice. What I want I ask the CFPB to require Citibank to : Reverse the remaining XXXX charges totaling {$400.00} under cases XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX as unauthorized under Regulation E and Visa/Mastercard XXXX Liability Policy. Provide a written explanation for why case XXXX was deemed fraud but XXXX identical XXXX cases were denied. Review its dispute process approving XXXX of XXXX identical charges from the same scam merchant violates the reasonable investigation standard under 12 CFR 1005.11 ( c ) ( XXXX ). Key facts for CFPB Citibank already determined XXXX defrauded me in case XXXX. The other XXXX charges are from the same merchant, same fraud scheme, same time period. Third-party reviews from XXXX confirm XXXX Terms of Use state that 'some profiles on the platform can be operated by XXXX in order to encourage all users to communicate within the website. ' This indicates I was paying to message company-operated profiles, not real users. User reviews also confirm the site uses AI-generated profiles. XXXX uses fantasy profiles and AI. This is not a legitimate dating service. I have no product, no service, and no contact with a real person. I was misled into paying for a service that does not exist. Federal law : Under Reg E 15 U.S.C. 1693f, the bank must conduct a reasonable investigation. Refunding XXXX of XXXX identical charges proves they did not. Please compel Citibank to complete its investigation and issue credit for the remaining {$400.00}. Sincerely, XXXX XXXX

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 explanation