Consumer complaint received 2026-02-12 00:00:00
Product: Credit card — General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Trouble using your card — Can't use card to make purchases
Company: JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.
State: TN

Complaint narrative:
First of all, CFPB failed to intervene on my initial complaint number XXXX. CFPB allowed JPMorganChase to bully the consumer in this case without any meaningful action or resolution. CFPB accepted JPMorganChases response of essentially telling the consumer they are allowed to decline transactions at any time for any reason which goes against federal consumer protections. In my situation, the CFPBs obligation is to ensure Chase is not engaging in unfair, deceptive, or abusive practices by issuing a credit card with a high credit limit but repeatedly declining legitimate transactions without clear, consistent justification or a meaningful corrective solution. Even if Chase claims the Cardmember Agreement allows them to decline transactions for any reason, the CFPB is responsible for reviewing whether Chases practices create unreasonable consumer harm, impose an avoidable burden, or reflect defective fraud controls that disproportionately impact consumers. The CFPB also has a duty to document patterns of complaints like mine and, if warranted, compel Chase to implement more consumer-friendly authorization and fraud resolution practices. I am submitting rebuttal to JPMorganChases response requesting further, CFPB and JPMorganChase review and an amicable resolution.

In response to JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.s ( Chase ) written reply. Chases response contains material inaccuracies, does not address the central consumer harm, and appears to rely on broad contractual language to avoid accountability for what has become a persistent and unreasonable authorization failure pattern. 

While Chase asserts that it can not guarantee transactions will not be declined, this is not a valid response to a repeated pattern of declines occurring under ordinary circumstances, including declines that were later approved without any consumer changes or intervention. 

1. Chases Response Contains Factual Errors and Misrepresentations Chase states that a Hims and Hers transaction for {$170.00} was declined on XX/XX/XXXX due to an incorrect address. This explanation is inaccurate and contradicted by the transaction history. 
The Hims and Hers charge on XX/XX/XXXX was approved, not declined. 
I have documentation ( my account statement ) showing this transaction posted successfully. 
I did not update, modify, or correct any address information with the merchant at any point. 

Chases claim that the transaction was declined due to an incorrect address is therefore unsupported. 

Additionally, Chases response fails to acknowledge that this is a subscription-based recurring transaction in which the merchant has my payment method stored on file. Nothing changed on my end that would reasonably explain the prior declines. 

2. Hims and Hers Transactions Were Previously Approved Under the Same Conditions Chases narrative suggests that merchant information or address issues caused the decline. However, my initial Hims and Hers purchase on XX/XX/XXXX was approved without issue using the same merchant profile and the same address via XXXX XXXX. 

The subsequent attempted charges on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX were declined even though : the merchant was unchanged, the transaction was recurring and expected, no address information was altered, and Chase had previously approved the same merchant under the same conditions.

Chases explanation does not reconcile these facts.

3. Chases Suspected Token/Digital Wallet Fraud Explanation Is Not Credible Without Supporting Evidence Chase repeatedly attributes declines to suspected token or digital wallet fraud, including transactions at : XXXX Nail XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX ) CVS Pharmacy ( XX/XX/XXXX ) However, these transactions were attempted via XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX requires authentication ( XXXX ID, passcode, or biometric authorization ). If Chases fraud controls are repeatedly flagging properly authenticated XXXX XXXX token transactions as fraudulent, that suggests either : Chases fraud detection logic is improperly calibrated, or Chase is declining transactions inappropriately and broadly labeling them as fraud-related. 

Chase provides no evidence that these transactions were objectively suspicious, nor do they explain what specific risk factor applied. Instead, they use vague and generic language ( suspected token fraud ) to justify recurring declines. 

4. Chases Own Response Confirms a Pattern of Repeated Soft Blocks With No Permanent Fix Chase confirms that soft blocks were repeatedly placed on my account, and that I contacted the Fraud Department on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, after which the account was cleared. 

This confirms the core issue : Chase is repeatedly blocking legitimate transactions Chase clears the account after I confirm the purchase is valid Chase then repeats the same conduct again shortly thereafter This indicates Chase has not implemented any corrective measure or account-level resolution to prevent recurring false declines. 

XXXX. Chases Position Creates an Unreasonable Consumer Burden Chases solution appears to be : call after each decline and request the account be cleared. 

This is not a meaningful remedy. It creates a recurring consumer burden and defeats the basic purpose of having a credit card account with a high credit limit.

A credit card product that routinely requires manual post-decline intervention is functionally unreliable, and it causes foreseeable harm, including transaction failures at the point of sale. 

6. Chases Reliance on Contractual Language Does Not Resolve Potential Regulatory Concerns Chase cites its Cardmember Agreement language stating it may decline transactions for any reason, and denies violations of laws or regulations.

However, contractual discretion does not eliminate regulatory obligations related to consumer harm, including whether practices may be : unfair ( substantial consumer injury not reasonably avoidable ), deceptive ( inaccurate explanations for declines ), or abusive ( imposing unreasonable barriers or burdens on consumers ). 

Chases response does not address why its systems are repeatedly generating false fraud flags on routine transactions, nor does it explain what steps will be taken to prevent continued declines. 

7. Requested CFPB Action / Requested Resolution I respectfully request that the CFPB require Chase to provide : 1. A documented explanation of what criteria triggered repeated token/digital wallet fraud soft blocks on my account 2. A permanent account-level solution to prevent recurring false declines 3. Clarification regarding why Chases response incorrectly claimed a XX/XX/XXXX decline when the transaction was approved 4. Documentation showing whether these declines were driven by Chases fraud model, Visas authorization system, or merchant data, and what steps Chase is taking to correct the issue 5. Confirmation of whether Chase has any process for human review or customer-specific fraud model adjustments for established low-risk consumers At minimum, Chase should be required XXXX ensure the account functions reliably for routine transactions and recurring merchants. 

Conclusion Chases response does not dispute the core complaint : the card has been consistently unreliable due to repeated transaction declines, and Chase has not provided a functional remedy. Their response contains factual inaccuracies, vague fraud rationales, and an attempt to rely on contractual discretion rather than addressing the ongoing consumer harm. 

I am requesting CFPB intervention to ensure Chase is held accountable and required to correct this issue.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation