Consumer complaint received 2026-04-24 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: BARCLAYS BANK DELAWARE
State: VA

Complaint narrative:
* * Complainant : * * XXXX XXXX XXXX * * Issuer : * * Barclays Bank Delaware * * Account : * * JetBlue XXXX ending XXXX * * Merchant : * * XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX * * Unauthorized Activity : * * XXXX XXXX XXXX Summary of Complaint I am filing this complaint because Barclays failed to conduct a thorough, good-faith investigation as mandated by 12 CFR 1026.13 ( Regulation Z ) and the Fair Credit Billing Act ( FCBA ) regarding unauthorized XXXX transactions that transpired after XX/XX/year>. Barclays closed my account due to suspicious activity, issued provisional credits, and then improperly reversed those credits based on incomplete and misleading merchant evidence. The investigation was inadequate and must be reopened immediately. 1. Unauthorized Use and Immediate Fraud Reporting I did not authorize, initiate, approve, or benefit from any XXXX transactions following XX/XX/year>. I reported the activity without delay. Barclays closed my account, acknowledging that their fraud detection systems recognized this behavior as inconsistent with my typical transactions. Under Regulation Z, it is the issuers responsibility * * not the consumers * * to determine whether authorization occurred. Barclays failed to validate authorization with essential issuer-side authentication logs ( 3-D Secure, CVV match, AVS match, device ID, IP address, tokenization logs ). None of this crucial information was provided. 2. Cross-Issuer Fraud Pattern Ignored The same merchant attempted or successfully posted unauthorized charges across five issuers : - Barclays - XXXX - XXXX - XXXX - XXXX XXXX ( all declined ) All issuers reported the same alarming pattern : - Rapid-fire {$990.00} charges - Multiple declines in mere seconds - Identical descriptors - Identical XXXX inconsistencies - Identical unauthorized activity This is a clear case of stored-credential compromise and account takeover, * * not typical cardholder behavior. * * Barclays ignored this significant cross-issuer evidence. 3. Merchant Evidence Was Fabricated, Inconsistent, or Misleading XXXX presented different versions of receipts, screenshots, transaction logs, XXXX descriptions, customer profile data, XXXX usage claims, and identity documents across XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and Barclays. XXXX retrieval packet reveals : - A counterfeit receipt labeled General Merchandise/Services - XXXX XXXX misrepresented as general merchandise - A New York address inconsistent with the posted descriptors - Recycled screenshots across multiple dates- Two XXXX cards listed, while I possess only one This constitutes * * material misrepresentation * *, invalidating the merchant evidence under Regulation Z and network rules. Barclays relied on this misleading evidence. 4. Posted Transaction Data Contradicted Merchant Claims Barclays did not adequately review the following critical evidence : - The posted descriptor - The posted XXXX- The network clearing record - The issuers own fraud alerts- The rapid-fire decline pattern XXXX posted data clearly indicates : - XXXX : Video Game Arcades/Establishments- Category : Travel/Entertainment - Not General Merchandise as the merchant falsely claimed Barclays failed to reconcile these glaring contradictions. 5. XXXX XXXX Compromise and Stored Credential Misuse Citibanks evidence shows that XXXX accessed my XXXX XXXX XXXX, which stores all my cards. I do not use XXXX XXXX for online purchases, nor did I authorize XXXX to access it. This clearly confirms credential compromise, not valid authorization. Barclays disregarded this crucial information. 6. Merchant Under Active Legal and Legislative Scrutiny XXXX is currently embroiled in multiple federal class-action lawsuits alleging illegal gambling, misrepresentation, deceptive practices, and identity misuse. Virginia legislation SB 118 and HB 161 is set to ban unlicensed sweepstakes casinos like XXXX. Their own communication acknowledged that these bills would effectively ban their games. Barclays failed to take the merchant 's high-risk status into account. 7. Barclays Misrepresented My Position and Closed the Case Improperly Barclays falsely asserted that I agreed the transactions were not fraudulent, which is entirely inaccurate. I never withdrew or reversed my fraud claim. Barclays closed this case without providing authentication logs, clearing records, fraud-system analysis, cross-issuer comparisons, or a review of contradictory merchant evidence. This is a direct violation of 12 CFR 1026.13 ( f ).

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