Consumer complaint received 2026-04-30 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: MN

Complaint narrative:
Formal Complaint Against Barclays Visa Case ID : XXXX It seems like Barclays is taking the position that as long as a merchant ships a productregardless of whether it is defective or usablethey have met their obligation under the sales agreement. I want to walk through what actually happened so we can evaluate whether that standard protects consumers in any meaningful way. I purchased custom items on XX/XX/XXXX from XXXX * XXXX totaling {$140.00}, including : XXXX ViewMasters XXXX custom photo reels ( XXXX per ViewMaster ) - XXXX rotatable photo frame What I received was not a usable product. The merchant claims the reels have a vintage feel. That explanation does not hold up. I own an original View-Master from the XXXX. Those reels are clear, sharp, and fully legible. The reels I received from this merchant are blurred to the point that the images can not be meaningfully viewed. It sounds like the merchant is using vintage as a way to justify a clear quality failure and to solicit more money. The rotatable frame also arrived defective, with most images cut off and improperly formatted. When I contacted the merchant multiple times, they did not offer to correct the issue. Instead, they requested an additional {$10.00} per reel ( totaling {$150.00} more ) just to make the images legible by charging extra to fix their own errors. It seems unreasonable that a customer would have to pay more just to receive a product that functions as originally intended. I disputed the charge with Barclays Visa because the items are : -Not as described -Not fit for their intended purpose -Defective in quality Barclays responded on XX/XX/XXXX that the merchant did not violate the terms and conditions of the sales agreement. So I want to make sure I understand Barclays position clearly : Is it Barclays view that product quality and usability are irrelevant as long as something is delivered? Because if that is the case, it effectively removes protection for consumers in situations where goods are clearly defective or misrepresented. After the dispute, I researched if there were any other complaints with the company. This merchant also appears to have a pattern of similar complaints, which raises further concern about their practices. Below are a couple of sources of complaints : -Blurry / unusable images ( patterned issue ) : Multiple consumers report photos that are blurry, unrecognizable, or distortedsometimes explained by the company as a vintage effect. ( Sources : XXXX, XXXX ) -Products not as described : Reviews consistently state the final products do not match advertised quality or appearance, supporting a not as described claim. ( Sources : XXXX, XXXX ) -Refund resistance / extra charges : Customers report denied refunds, being blamed for defects, or asked to pay additional fees to correct issuesmirroring my experience. ( Sources : XXXX, XXXX ) -Pattern of complaints suggesting systemic issues : Repeated reports across platforms indicate this is not an isolated incident but a consistent pattern of poor quality and lack of resolution. ( Sources : XXXX, XXXX ) It feels like the responsibility has been shifted entirely onto the consumer, despite clear evidence that the goods are not usable. Im requesting a fair reassessment of this dispute under the standard of goods not as described and not fit for purpose, and for Barclays to reconsider their decision. Requested Resolution : Reversal of the {$140.00} charge. I used my camera to best reflect the image of one of the photo images on the reels showing illegible photo reel quality. I'd be happy to supply this if helpful. Documentation of communication with merchant : This was the last email with the company dated : XX/XX/XXXX. Hello, Yes, I received the order and I have been communicating extensively with XXXX from your company. Please review the full communication history before responding, as this has already been discussed in detail. Let me make sure I understand your position correctly. The tracking shows the items were delivered. The items were delivered. The issue is not delivery. The issue is functionality. The reels are not recognizable. The frame crops people out of the photos. These are not preference concerns as they are performance failures. A product can be customized and still be defective. Customization does not eliminate the obligation to deliver a usable product. Help me understand something : -How is asking a customer to pay an additional {$10.00} per reel to correct unusable items reasonable? No offer to correct cut off pictures in the resolving picture frame has been proposed either. -How is offering to remake only XXXX of XXXX reels an adequate resolution when all XXXX are defective? -How does keeping payment for products that can not be used align with good-faith customer service? It seems like your position is : The products were delivered, therefore the transaction is complete. Because they are customized, the customer absorbs the loss even if they are unusable. That doesnt work. Im not asking for an upgrade. Im asking for the product I paid for to function as advertised. At this stage, the path forward is simple : Either : Confirm that you will accept return of all items and issue a full refund to the original form of payment, or confirm in writing that you are refusing a full refund for nonfunctional products. Silence and partial offers are not resolution. I prefer to resolve this directly. Thats why I communicated repeatedly before initiating a dispute. But I will not pay additional money to make a defective order usable. Please review the full email history with XXXX and respond with a clear decision.

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