Consumer complaint received 2026-04-15 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: BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
State: AZ

Complaint narrative:
Background of the Dispute : In XX/XX/year>, I signed a representation agreement with a law firm, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( the " Merchant '' ). The agreement required specific services in exchange for retainer payments made via my Bank of America XXXX credit card. The Merchant failed to deliver the services and defaulted on the agreement, stating in writing that they did not perform the services, which gave rise to the default. I offered a resolution ; the Merchant rejected my offer and terminated the agreement. Under XXXX State Bar fiduciary rules, the Merchant is obligatedunder penalty of fiduciary fraudto refund the unspent retainer balance. On XX/XX/year>, the Merchant disbursed XXXX USD via a check explicitly labeled " Advance Deposit Refund. '' I then engaged Bank of America ( the " Bank '' ) to begin the process of a credit card dispute for XXXX charges because the Merchant defaulted on the contract and failed to deliver the promised deliverables. These XXXX disputes are legally distinct from the deposit refund ; those funds represent unbilled client property and are isolated from the funds paid for invoiced services. Experience with the Bank & Failure to Provide Information : I initiated the first chargeback claim on XX/XX/year> ( Claim ID : XXXX ) for a full dispute of the XXXX USD transaction paid on XX/XX/year>. I initiated the second chargeback claim on XX/XX/year> ( Claim ID : XXXX ) for a partial dispute of XXXX USD of a total XXXX USD transaction paid on XX/XX/year>. It is important to note that the second dispute ( XXXX USD ) is partial by exactly the amount of the XXXX USD deposit refund check ( XXXX + XXXX = XXXX ). This mathematical link definitively shuts down the Merchant 's fraudulent claim that the check was a " credit '' for the first transaction. Throughout this process, I provided the Bank with exhaustive forensic accounting, Merchant correspondence admitting to the default, and evidence of a total lack of work product. In contrast, the Merchant responded to the first dispute, stating they provided a " partial credit, '' citing only the Merchant 's invoices and an image of the XX/XX/XXXX deposit refund check ( Exhibit O, XXXX XXXX ). The Merchant provided no proof of actual work or any response to my specific accusations. I have formally requested specific information from the Bank regarding their investigative findings and the logic used to justify their denial. The Bank has willfully ignored these requests, failing to provide the written explanation required by 12 CFR 1026.13 ( f ). Over the past several months, I have encountered severe systemic friction and administrative stonewalling from the Bank 's claims department and executive resolution team. While front-line supervisors with the Banks claims department ( e.g., XXXX in the XXXX office ) performed an audit and acknowledged the Merchant 's misrepresentation regarding the deposit refund, the claims department has willfully ignored those findings. My escalation to the executive team of XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX ( Exhibit S ) resulted in further stonewalling from Client Care Advocate XXXX XXXX ( XXXX office ), who engaged me on XX/XX/XXXX but refused to address the forensic evidence. This process has been characterized by repeated " system errors '' closing claims prematurely, willful negligence in ignoring clear evidence, and subsequent obfuscation. I am filing this complaint regarding the Bank 's failure to conduct a " reasonable investigation '' per 12 CFR 1026.13 ( Regulation Z ) and its obfuscation of the Merchant 's fraudulent acts. Specifically, the Bank failed to recognize a mandatory deposit refund of unbilled funds. In the absence of a detailed explanation, the Bank mischaracterized it as a voluntary merchant " credit '' to deny both claims. The Bank facilitated fraud by " double-counting '' that single deposit refund check to justify the denial of XXXX separate, independent chargeback claims. The Bank 's primary failure is a neglect to recognize that this check is a return of unspent deposit funds, not a refund for invoiced services. Despite exhaustive notices, the Bank mischaracterized a mandatory deposit refund as a " transaction credit '' to justify the denial of XXXX separate disputes totaling XXXX USD. I direct the CFPB analyst to the Merchant Documents ( Exhibit O and Exhibit Z ). This evidence was provided BY the Merchant in response to the first claim for XXXX USD ( Exhibit O ) and recycled verbatim by the Bank for the second claim for XXXX USD ( Exhibit Z ), which I obtained from the Bank 's own records system : Exhibit O, Page 5 / Exhibit Z, Page 4 : The Merchant checked " Credit Issued '' for XXXX USD. Exhibit O, Page 18 / Exhibit Z, Page 17 : The only supporting evidence provided by the Merchant for the " credit issued '' is the check explicitly labeled " Advance Deposit Refund. ''

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