Consumer complaint received 2026-03-01 00:00:00
Product: Credit card — General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Problem with a purchase shown on your statement — Card was charged for something you did not purchase with the card
Company: CITIBANK, N.A.
State: OR

Complaint narrative:
Complaints against Citibank and XXXX I am filing a complaint regarding Citibanks refusal to reverse an unauthorized XXXX charge of {$69.00} dated XX/XX/XXXX and its failure to conduct a reasonable investigation as required by the Fair Credit Billing Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1666 ). Background and timeline : In XX/XX/XXXX, my Citibank credit card was compromised and incurred multiple fraudulent charges. Citibank acknowledged fraud during this period and reversed several unauthorized transactions. On XX/XX/XXXX, Citibank sent me a letter stating that a disputed XXXX charge of {$69.00} was valid, enclosing XXXX pages of documentation purportedly from XXXX. The documentation was difficult to read and relied on address verification and proof of delivery. I received the letter on XX/XX/XXXX and contacted Citibanks fraud department that same day. I spoke with both a fraud agent and then a supervisor and explained that : I did not authorize the transaction I do not know the shipper or recipient I do not have and never had a XXXX account Citibank did not accept this explanation and instead required that I provide proof that I did not make the transaction, placing the burden on me rather than demonstrating authorization. Under federal law, the burden is on the creditor to demonstrate that a disputed charge was authorized. Requiring a cardholder to prove that they did not make a transaction is inconsistent with the Fair Credit Billing Act. I was instructed to submit a written explanation by email, which I did on XX/XX/XXXX, explaining why the documentation did not establish authorization. Despite this, Citibank issued a determination letter dated XX/XX/XXXX ( received by me on XX/XX/XXXX ) stating that my proof wasnt enough to support your claim, effectively closing the dispute. Deficiencies in Citis investigation : The documentation Citi relied upon does not demonstrate authorization : It shows only that a package was shipped and delivered, not that I authorized the charge The shipper and recipient were both located in Texas ; I was not in Texas and do not know either party It lists a XXXX account number billed to my name and address, despite the fact that I have never opened or authorized a XXXX account Citibank has produced no signature, account application, login credentials, IP address, or other evidence tying me to this transaction. Contradictory information from XXXX : After receiving the XX/XX/XXXX letter from Citibank, I contacted XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX. XXXX XXXX advised me that : They could not locate any XXXX account associated with the account number shown in Citibanks documentation When I provided the invoice number, they were able to locate the invoice, but it did not contain an account number, unlike the documentation attributed to XXXX that Citibank provided to me I was instructed to email and request a form, which I did on XX/XX/XXXX The email response, received on XX/XX/XXXX, instructed me to call the same fraud number again. During that call, the XXXX representative stated that the transaction was fraudulent and instructed me to return to Citibank. When I asked how documentation had been provided to Citibank tying me to this shipment, no explanation was provided. Summary : Citibank denied my dispute based on third-party documentation that XXXX itself can not reconcile to a valid account or to me. Citibank closed the dispute XXXX days after my written response and before it could reasonably obtain written confirmation from XXXX. Throughout this process, Citibank improperly shifted the burden to me to prove that I did not authorize the charge. Although the dollar amount is relatively small, the conduct is deeply concerning. A consumer should not be held financially responsible based on documentation that does not establish authorization and that the merchant itself can not reconcile. I am concerned that similar practices could harm other consumers who do not have the time or ability to pursue repeated disputes. This constitutes a failure to conduct a reasonable investigation under the Fair Credit Billing Act. Requested Resolution I respectfully request that the CFPB require Citibank to : XXXX. Reverse the {$69.00} charge XXXX. Correct my account records to reflect that the charge was unauthorized XXXX Review its dispute procedures when relying on third-party merchant documentation XXXX. Confirmation that no adverse credit reporting has occurred or will occur in connection with this disputed charge I am also requesting the CFPB investigate the manner Citibank and XXXX handled this and if within your authority to fine these companies. I am attaching Citibanks letters, the XXXX documentation, my written email correspondence with Citibank, and my written email correspondence with FedEx. ( PLEASE DO NOT PUBLISH Citibank 's letter or FedEx documentation with my name and address )

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 monetary relief