Consumer complaint received 2026-05-05 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: BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
CFPB COMPLAINT BANK OF AMERICA , N.A . Filed by : XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX Cardholder Account : ending XXXX Date : XXXX XXXX XXXX Subject Claim ID : XXXX Disputed Amount : {$35.00} CFPB Form Selections ( recommended ) Product : Credit card or prepaid card Sub-product : General-purpose credit card or charge card Issue : Problem with a purchase shown on your statement Sub-issue : Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement Company : BANK OF AMERICA , NATIONAL ASSOCIATION Narrative ( paste into CFPB " What happened? '' field ) On XXXX XXXX XXXX I opened a billing dispute with Bank of America ( Claim ID XXXX ) for a {$35.00} charge from XXXX ( Order XXXX, seller XXXX ). My dispute concerns the merchant 's refusal to honor its published return policy after I requested a return on the same day the merchandise was delivered. KEY FACTS ( all documented and submitted to BoA at intake ) : The merchandise was delivered on XX/XX/scrub>XXXX XXXX XXXX. I requested a refund the same day at XXXX XXXX, immediately upon inspection. The seller ( XXXX ) denied the refund of {$32.00}. XXXX customer service representative " XXXX '' stated in writing on the platform 's official chat : " upon checking on your item, the reason on why you can not request a return is it is tagged as non returnable... it is not because it already passed the 90 day period. '' This is a sworn admission by the merchant that the refund was refused solely on the basis of an internal " non-returnable '' tag, not because of any contractual return-window expiration. XXXXXXXX XXXX order page shows a popup stating : " No items from this package are eligible for return. '' The order status reads " Refund failed. '' The " non-returnable '' classification was applied to the order AFTER delivery and AFTER my refund request. This is a unilateral, post-hoc revocation of the buyer 's contractual return remedy and is inconsistent with XXXXXXXX XXXX published consumer return policy. I uploaded the chat transcript and the order screenshots at claim intake on XXXX XXXX XXXX. PROCEDURAL HISTORY WITH BANK OF AMERICA : On XXXX XXXX XXXX, after BoA issued a generic " Step 2 of 3 Request for additional information '' notice that did not identify any missing item, I sent Bank of America a formal complaint letter detailing the case, the regulatory basis ( Fair Credit Billing Act, 15 U.S.C. 1666 ; Regulation Z, 12 CFR 1026.13 ), and demanded final adjudication on the merits. The letter expressly placed BoA on notice of preservation obligations and notice of regulatory escalation. On XXXX XXXX XXXX without acknowledging or substantively addressing my XXXX XXXX complaint letter Bank of America issued a final denial. The stated reason was : " We're unable to confirm that you were supposed to receive something different than what you received. We requested, but didn't receive, information showing what you received is different than what you purchased. '' WHY BoA 'S DENIAL IS NON-RESPONSIVE TO THE DISPUTE : My dispute is not about merchandise being " different than purchased. '' It is about ( a ) the merchant refusing to honor its published return policy, and ( b ) the merchant retroactively tagging items as " non-returnable '' to defeat my refund right. By framing my dispute as a " goods not as described '' / quality claim and then denying it on that basis, Bank of America investigated a different claim than the one I filed. The merchant 's written admission that the refund was refused solely because of an internal " non-returnable '' tag is dispositive on the actual dispute and was in BoA 's possession from intake. BoA never addressed it. REGULATORY ISSUES : 12 CFR 1026.13 ( c ) requires the creditor to conduct a " reasonable investigation '' and to determine the dispute correctly. Investigating and denying a different claim than the one filed does not satisfy this standard. 12 CFR 1026.13 ( f ) prohibits creditor collection on a disputed amount until the dispute is properly resolved. BoA 's denial places the disputed amount back into the balance owed without having resolved the actual dispute. The XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Step 2 of 3 Request for additional information '' notice was generic and did not identify what specific evidence the bank considered missing, despite the merchant 's written denial, the chat transcript, and the order details having been submitted at intake. RESOLUTION REQUESTED : Reverse the XXXX XXXX XXXX denial and issue permanent credit of {$35.00} to my account ending XXXX. Re-open the investigation under the correct dispute classification merchant refusal to honor published return policy / credit not processed not " merchandise not as described. '' Written confirmation that my XXXX XXXX XXXX formal complaint letter was received and reviewed, and a substantive response to the regulatory points raised in that letter. Internal audit of why this dispute was misclassified as a quality dispute when the supporting evidence ( merchant 's written non-returnable admission ) clearly framed it as a refusal-to-credit dispute. I have preserved all evidence including the merchant chat transcripts, order screenshots, the BoA denial letter dated XXXX XXXX XXXX, and my XXXX XXXX XXXX formal complaint letter to BoA and will provide them to CFPB and to Bank of America 's response counsel as needed. An evidence chain document accompanies this complaint as an attachment.

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