Consumer complaint received 2024-04-10 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: DISCOVER BANK
State: AZ

Complaint narrative:
Dear Discover Card Fraud & Dispute team, please find summarize my response to the chargeback objection that XXXX has replied : Im attaching a screenshot of the responsibility of the creator that is working with XXXX as the payment facilitator. 
A pledge is defined as : collateral for the payment of a debt or the performance of an obligation. 
XXXX has an obligation, once the funding goal has been reached, to fulfill the pledge. 
On XXXX XXXX, see attached email XXXX - XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX by XXXX XXXX XXXX an update on XX/XX/XXXX that there is another delay in the production and that they will start shipping on XXXX week of XX/XX/XXXX. They havent logged in the tool since. 
As per XXXX own term of use : Many of us XXXX backers have emailed XXXX to advise them of this fraudulent creator and XXXX chose to provide canned answers that deflect responsibility and tells us to go to the creator. However, the creator cant be reached. 
A ) Email for XXXX or any other at this email domain have bounced. 
B ) Communication via the XXXX messages have remain unresponsive. 
C ) XXXX website is down and domain ownership has expired D ) Phone # in XXXX XXXX is out of service. 
For a creator to obviously not provide any failed updates to this project, ghost their clients is indeed XXXX. 
The legal recourse in United States and using the current Discover Card credit that we have protection against fraudulent activity. XXXX has remained silent on the obvious XXXX. 
There has been no contact from the author since XX/XX/XXXX, and there has been no response to inquiries. This is a violation of the term of service. 
XXXX 's counterargument is extremely dishonest, as there is no evidence that they have taken appropriate measures against creators ' violations of terms. 
If XXXX does not take appropriate measures, it may end up protecting creators suspected of XXXX and could be considered aiding and abetting XXXX 
This refund application is for the creator 's violation of the contract, and XXXX 's behavior that can be seen as aiding and abetting XXXX is problematic. I don't accept their objection to my dispute. 
Some additional information on this dispute : While XXXX chose to be quite elaborate in the tracking of information theyve gathered on my online activity, they chose to omit key information on the pledge and transaction. 
XXXX defines as leave out or exclude ( someone or something ), either intentionally or forgetfully. 
The Pledge was XXXXUSD as per attached screenshot ( email with summary attached XXXX- You just backed XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and the initial estimated delivery of XX/XX/XXXX ( which has been pushed out many times, with the XXXX update indicating a XXXX week of XXXX as delivery timeframe. 
XXXX has omitted that there was an add-on purchase of a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX USD ) and shipping cost, added to the initial pledge. 
Not sure why XXXX should purposely omit this information. If they chose to be deceitful, their position on their objection can be challenged. This leads on the next point : XXXX. XXXX promotes various projects in the hope that the project is funded so that they can collect XXXX XXXX fee. They only care on collecting the fee. 
A ) I only purchased the pledge because of the XXXX promotion of the project. 
XXXX omitted the how I purchased via their advertisement and chose to only display the closing transaction. 
B ) XXXX has a skin in the game as they are endorsing the creators but choses to wash of their hands of creators criminal activities. 
C ) Against their own terms of use, XXXX promotes XXXX  items in XXXX. Attached are two ads shown in XXXX about spring-loaded knifes which are prohibited here. 
If XXXX is willing to violate their own Terms of Use, how can they even dictate one to their customers. Their credibility is thrown out of the argument. 
In conclusion, XXXX has not done the due diligence in vetting creators, chose to endorse said Creators and when backers started to advise that there are fraudulent activities ( bounced emails, no updates, no logged activities in XXXX, phone # not working ), deflected the Backers back to the Creator to wash of their responsibilities. This is XXXX and thankfully in the United States of America we have consumer protections that allow me to dispute the charge and get my money back.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation