Consumer complaint received 2025-11-24 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: CITIBANK, N.A.
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
Case Reference : XXXX Transaction Amount : {$970.00} Transaction Date : XX/XX/year> Merchant : XXXX XXXX Complaint Summary : Citibank improperly denied my legitimate credit card dispute by misclassifying it as " non-receipt of merchandise '' when I clearly filed for defective merchandise that the merchant refuses to accept for return. 
The Misclassification Error : Citibank denied my dispute, stating I " received the merchant '' and there was " some misunderstanding. '' This completely misses the pointI never claimed non-receipt. I received a systematically defective XXXX laptop with multiple progressive hardware failures that XXXX refuses to take back for a refund. 
Objective Evidence of Product Defects : Initial Defect : The laptop arrived completely unusable with persistent XXXX XXXX errors, making it non-functional from delivery. 
Progressive Hardware Failure : The laptop subsequently developed complete battery failureit now only operates when plugged into AC power and shuts down immediately when unplugged. XXXX diagnostics show battery error conditions and XXXX  % capacity. 
I provided Citibank comprehensive evidence, including photographs of error messages, BIOS diagnostic screenshots, and video documentation of battery failure. Also, I have records of XXXX 's refusal to provide return authorization ( support tickets were submitted prior to the dispute ). 
Citibank 's Procedural Failures : Despite this objective evidence, Citibank denied my dispute based on XXXX 's claim that I " received the merchandise. '' This demonstrates : Fundamental misunderstanding of dispute classification Failure to properly evaluate comprehensive evidence of defects Ignoring merchant obstruction of legitimate return rights Fair Credit Billing Act Violation : Under the Fair Credit Billing Act, I have explicit rights to dispute charges for defective merchandise when merchants refuse resolution. A laptop that can not boot properly and can not operate on battery power fails basic functionality standards. 
Citibank 's denial appears to violate my consumer protection rights by siding with the merchant despite clear evidence of systematic product defects and return obstruction. 
Current Status : I filed a formal appeal with Citibank today, providing additional evidence of the progressive hardware failures. However, I'm filing this CFPB complaint because Citibank 's initial handling demonstrates inadequate evaluation of objective evidence and potential FCBA violations. 
Citibank 's Procedural Violations and Failure to Conduct Reasonable Investigation : When Citibank denied my dispute on XX/XX/year>, their letter stated only : " The merchant provided documentation that services/merchandise were completed. '' No copy of the merchant 's response or supporting documentation was provided to me. 
On XX/XX/year>, I contacted Citibank 's dispute department to understand the basis for denial and request the merchant documentation they claimed to rely upon. During this call, the representative committed several serious procedural violations : False Information and Retractions : The representative initially stated that XXXX had provided me with a " return label. '' When I requested proof of this alleged return label ( which I desperately need ), the representative immediately retracted this statement and changed the explanation, claiming XXXX had only provided a " signature proving I received the product. '' Confirmation of Wrong Investigation Type : By stating the denial was based on " delivery signature, '' the representative confirmed that Citibank investigated a " non-receipt of merchandise '' dispute. I have never claimed non-receipt. My dispute concerns defective merchandise that the merchant refuses to accept for return. Proof of delivery is completely irrelevant to product quality defects. 
Refusal to Provide Required Documentation : I repeatedly requested copies of whatever documentation XXXX allegedly provided to support their position. The representative refused to provide any merchant response, documentation, or evidence that Citibank claimed to rely upon for their denial decision. This prevents me from rebutting specific merchant claims and violates transparency requirements. 
Dismissive and Obstructive Conduct : When I attempted to clarify that this is a defective product dispute, not a delivery dispute, the representative became irritated, insisted they " don't deal with merchants, '' and terminated the conversation by suggesting I " wait for mail '' without providing any specific timeline or commitments. 
Fair Credit Billing Act Violations : Citibank has failed its legal obligation under the Fair Credit Billing Act to conduct a reasonable investigation. They denied my legitimate dispute based on evidence for a completely different dispute type I never filed, refused to share the merchant evidence they claimed to rely upon, and provided false and contradictory explanations for their decision-making process. 
This pattern of behavior appears to constitute " Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts or Practices '' under CFPB regulations, as Citibank is using procedural obstacles and misinformation to deny legitimate consumer protection rights for objectively defective merchandise.

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