Consumer complaint received 2025-11-28 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: JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.
State: MI

Complaint narrative:
Subject : Request for Regulatory Review Improper Handling of XXXX Nondelivery Dispute ( {$10000.00} ) To Whom It May Concern : I request immediate regulatory intervention regarding a disputed travel-club transaction involving XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) and processed by Chase. Despite multiple dispute submissions and extensive documentation, Chase has not resolved this matter in accordance with its obligations under the Fair Credit Billing Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1666 ), XXXX  XXXX, and XXXX XXXX XXXX governing nondelivery of services. 
The issue is straightforward : the merchant did not deliver the contracted XXXX  membershipand Chase has allowed the merchant to retain payment in direct contradiction of XXXX XXXX and XXXX nondelivery standards. 
XXXX. Material Non-Performance XXXX Membership Was the Contracted Service The XXXX membership was the essential, contracted benefit and the core inducement for the full {$21000.00} paid across my credit cards ( Chase, XXXX XXXX, and XXXX  XXXX ). XXXX  onboarding materials promised delivery of an XXXX account number and membership access within XXXX weeks. 
It has now been more than XXXX  months, and I have never received it. 
The facts are XXXX did not : create an XXXX account pay XXXX membership fees provide login credentials deliver any aspect of XXXX access Under the Fair Credit Billing Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1666 ( b ) ( 3 ) ) and XXXX XXXX 1026.13 ( e ) ( 2 ), nondelivery of the contracted service constitutes a billing error requiring correction. 

XXXX. XXXX Provided Written Confirmation of Total Nondelivery XXXX issued a definitive written statement : No XXXX account has been created, and no membership fees have been paid to establish an account in my name. 
This confirms : No account No payment No service No delivery This is the only evidence that can prove XXXX  it proves nondelivery. 

XXXX. XXXX  Proof of Delivery Was Not XXXX  Any Standard XXXX did not provide evidence of XXXX activation. 
Instead, XXXX submitted emails showing access to : the XXXX website, and the XXXX/Arrivia portal ( a generic, public-rate travel interface ) These platforms : do not appear anywhere in the contract are not affiliated with XXXX do not deliver the contracted benefit were not disclosed as substitutes at the point of sale There is no scenario in which these unrelated websites can be construed as performance of the contracted obligation. 
Providing unrelated website access as alleged fulfillment violates : XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX Services Not Provided XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX Misrepresentation XXXX. Chase Failed to Conduct the GoodFaith Investigation Required by XXXX XXXX  Under the Fair Credit Billing Act and XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ( XXXX ), Chase is required to conduct a reasonable, goodfaith investigation and base its decision on a complete and accurate evidentiary record. Chase did not meet this standard. 
Chases conduct reflects a pattern of investigative failure : XXXX appeared unfamiliar with the documentation I submitted, despite multiple detailed filings. My timelines, contract provisions, nondelivery evidence, and attachments were effectively disregarded. Chase accepted XXXX  statements without scrutiny and did not require the merchant to substantiate its claims. Chase never XXXX  XXXX  evidence showing that XXXX was funded, activated, or delivered.Chase : did not require evidence of XXXX delivery did not request verification from XXXX did not evaluate whether XXXX fulfilled the contracted service accepted XXXX  assertions at face value relied on unrelated website access with no contractual connection to XXXX significantly, Chase upheld the charge without ever requesting or reviewing the decisive evidence that now resolves all XXXX written confirmation of nondelivery. 
These failures fall far below the investigative obligations imposed by federal law. 
During a call on or about XX/XX/year>, a Chase representative stated that the banks hands were tied after XX/XX/year>. This admission is incompatible with XXXX XXXX, which requires : ongoing review of new evidence, continuous duty of goodfaith investigation, and reconsideration when a consumer submits additional documentation. 
This statement indicates that Chase had effectively predecided the outcome of the dispute months before receiving the most critical evidence, including XXXX  written confirmation of nondelivery. Such predetermined handling is inconsistent with the XXXX  requirement of a fair, goodfaith investigation. Instead, it reflects a process that was functionally closed, regardless of the merits of the claim. Chase is allowing the merchant to retain payment without performance because it failed to conduct the investigation the law requires. 

XXXX. XXXX XXXX Reviewed the Same Transaction and Reached the Only Legally Defensible Conclusion In XX/XX/year>, XXXX XXXX reviewed a charge arising from the same XX/XX/XXXX XXXX transaction and reversed it. XXXX and Chase evaluated the same merchant conduct, the same representations, and the same nondelivery. 
XXXX XXXX : issued written confirmation of the reversal ; determined that XXXX did not provide sufficient evidence of service delivery ; invited XXXX to submit rebuttal documentation ; allowed XXXX the opportunity to seek rebilling ; and received neither, because XXXX could not produce proof of XXXX delivery. 
XXXX findings align directly with the written statement from XXXX confirming that no account exists and no membership fees were ever paid. 
Chase, however : reached the opposite result, accepted XXXX assertions without requiring proof, and failed to apply XXXX  nondelivery and misrepresentation rules. 
This disparity can not be explained by the facts, because the facts are identical across both disputes.It can only be explained by a breakdown in Chases dispute-handling procedures. 
I request that Chase disclose whether it considered the XXXX reversal during its XXXX since I informed Chase multiple times that XXXX reversed its identical XXXX  charge for XXXX  explain why a materially identical dispute produced a contradictory outcome. Additionally, I request that Chase issue a written response identifying the evidence, contractual provisions, and XXXX rules it relied upon when it informed me that its hands were tied. 

XXXX. Prior Regulatory Action Confirms a Pattern of Nondelivery XXXX  broader enterprise has been subject to consumer protection enforcement by XXXX  ( XXXX XXXX ) for the failure to deliver membership benefits. 
In that action, an entity operating under the XXXX brand was required to reimburse consumers for nonperformance. 
This mirrors the facts of my case : membership benefits were promised membership benefits were not delivered the merchant retained payment without performance XXXX. Basis for Regulatory Intervention I respectfully request investigation into : whether Chases handling complied with the Fair Credit Billing Act and XXXX  XXXX  whether XXXX  submissions constituted misrepresentation under XXXX  rules whether Chase failed to evaluate contract-specific performance obligations whether systemic deficiencies exist in Chases handling of cross-border nondelivery disputes XXXX written confirmation, the contract representations, XXXX submissions, and XXXX  XXXX  independent determination all support the same conclusion : The contracted service was never delivered. Yet Chase upheld the charge. 

XXXX. Requested Regulatory Action I respectfully request : A formal review of Chases dispute handling Evaluation of compliance with XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX  Oversight to ensure Chase does not treat unrelated website access as contractual fulfillment Corrective action, including immediate reversal of the {$10000.00} charge and removal of all related fees or interest, due to nondelivery of the contracted service I have escalated this matter to the highest level within Chase, including direct correspondence addressed to XXXX XXXX XXXX, and have exhausted all internal options. Regulatory action is now needed to restore consumer protections and hold the issuer accountable. 

Sincerely, XXXX XXXX : XXXX : ( XXXX ) XXXX

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation