Consumer complaint received 2026-05-18 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: CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION
State: OH

Complaint narrative:
To Whom It May Concern, I am submitting this complaint regarding the handling of my dispute involving a transaction with XXXX XXXX My dispute was improperly evaluated as a simple merchandise not returned matter, despite extensive written documentation demonstrating that the actual issue involves merchant misrepresentation, contradictory guidance, and undisclosed conditions introduced after my reliance on the merchants written communications. The merchant, XXXX XXXX, provided written clarification extending its 45-day money-back guarantee through approximately XX/XX/XXXX. This clarification was provided directly by the company via email in response to ambiguity regarding its published terms and conditions and its advertised 45-day risk-free trial. I relied on that written clarification in good faith. Afterward, the merchant reversed its position and introduced an additional condition that the product ( or empty product bags ) allegedly needed to be physically received by their facility within the same guarantee window, after having told me the empty bags could be disposed of seeing as how they were consumable goods. This condition was never disclosed in the written clarification provided to me, nor was it communicated as a requirement when I was instructed I could continue trying the product until approximately XX/XX/XXXX. On the contrary, the company continued encouraging me to try additional product shipments after my cancellation request had been ignored and after I had already informed them the product was not working for me and that I intended to rely on the advertised 45-day money-back guarantee. It was only after additional questioning on my part that the company disclosed the additional shipment allegedly would not qualify under the guarantee, at which point I declined the shipment again. Prior to that clarification, the company was also attempting to hold me financially responsible for that shipment despite my cancellation request having been submitted before processing and shipment. They did, however, after much time and effort and multiple emails, eventually refund me for that second shipment, calling it a " courtesy '' instead of taking accountability for shipping it out and causing a bigger issue to begin with. The dispute and complaint therefore are not simply about returned merchandise. The issue is that : The merchant clarified their terms in writing when I asked for clarity due to their ambiguity, I relied on those representations, The merchant later contradicted those representations, And Capital One appears to have evaluated and interpreted the dispute solely under the merchants original ambiguous generalized terms and conditions rather than the documented communications that modified and clarified those terms. Additionally, the merchants current interpretation effectively means consumers do not actually receive the full advertised 45-day trial period, because the merchant later asserted the product must also arrive back at their facility within that same timeframe a material condition that was never clearly disclosed nor represented, and completely contradicts their advertised 45 day money back risk free trial. I respectfully request : Reconsideration and reclassification of this dispute under misrepresentation and failure to disclose material conditions, Review of the merchants written communications in conjunction with the dispute, Clarification regarding why documented merchant representations were disregarded in favor of ambiguous and generalized terms that the merchant itself later modified and clarified through direct correspondence. I would also like this complaint to include concerns regarding the handling of this matter by Capital One representative XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX at approximately XXXXXXXX XXXX, I spoke with XXXX for approximately 1 hour, 19 minutes, and 54 seconds regarding this dispute. During this call, I repeatedly clarified that my dispute involved deceptive business practices, merchant misrepresentation, contradictory written guidance, and undisclosed conditions introduced after my reliance on the merchants communications. Despite this, and the fact that she had all communications between XXXX XXXX & myself, including the email where they infer that they'll give me a refund if I withdraw my dispute from Capital 1, the dispute continued to be characterized solely as a merchandise not returned issue, as opposed to the deceptive business practice that it was. I also need to clarify that the only reason I was not dropping my dispute in lue of them finally offering a refund was because they had only offered to do what was right after I filed the dispute and seeing as how the dispute was only filed because they'd already lied to me multiple times at that point and taken no accountability, I had/have no reason to believe they would do what they said they would. I explained this to XXXX and Capital 1. XXXX acknowledged that she could clearly see these discrepancies and misrepresentations in XXXX XXXX 's multiple emails to me. Therefore, it's reasonable to believe it was just another deceptive tactic and that they had no intention on sending me my money back. During the call, XXXX stated that : XXXX made the determination to deny the dispute, Capital One was required to rely exclusively on the merchants submitted terms and conditions, Capital One would not take into consideration the deceptive practices of XXXX XXXX nor would they acknowledge XXXX XXXX deceptive attempt to get me to drop my dispute There was nobody above her available for escalation, And that my remaining option would ultimately be to file a lawsuit againsXXXX XXXX XXXX for the refund, as well as Capital One and XXXX for XXXX 's nonsensical, anti-consumer interpretation of their policies. I further explained that XXXX XXXX own representative had clarified and effectively modified the merchants standard terms through direct written communications due to ambiguity surrounding the advertised 45-day risk-free trial and return requirements. Specifically, I pointed out that the merchant later introduced additional conditions that were not disclosed at the time I relied on the written extension. She acknowledged that she saw that in the emails as well, but said it was all irrelevant to their policy, stating something to the loose effect that customer protection doesn't apply when companies lie to consumers, even if it's in writing. I am requesting review of both the dispute determination itself and the information communicated to me during this interaction with XXXX from Capital One. I have preserved all email communications and supporting documentation and am prepared to provide them upon request. When I asked, XXXX claimed that our phone call was being recorded, so if she's to be trusted, that should be preserved as well. Sincerely, XXXX XXXX ( XXXX

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation