Consumer complaint received 2026-03-12 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: VA

Complaint narrative:
I am filing this complaint against Citibank for multiple violations of the Fair Credit Billing Act ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) in connection with the handling and wrongful denial of XXXX billing dispute claims ( Case XXXX XXXX and XXXX ) involving {$190.00} each ( {$390.00} total ) charged by The XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, a sweepstakes merchant, for services that were never provided. I. THE UNDERLYING DISPUTE : SERVICE NOT PROVIDED UNDER XXXX U.S.C. XXXX ( b ) ( XXXX ) On XX/XX/XXXX, I made XXXX purchases of {$190.00} each on my Citi XXXX XXXX card ( account ending XXXX ) at XX/XX/XXXX. This dispute is properly classified as a " services not provided as agreed '' billing error under XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( b ) ( XXXX ). The merchant 's anticipated defense that it delivered " Gold Coins '' digitally and instantly fails under the Predominant Purpose Test. The merchant 's own Terms of Service ( Clause XXXX ) explicitly state that Gold Coins " do not have any real money value '' and " can not be redeemed for value or otherwise. '' The actual economic substance of the transaction the predominant purpose for which payment was made was the XXXX XXXX ( SC ) redemption service : the contractual right to redeem cash winnings. This is confirmed by the merchant 's own Sweepstakes Rules, which state SC coins are " redeemable for real prizes including cash, '' and by the merchant 's own purchase interface, which lists SC Coin first above Gold Coins. Delivering valueless Gold Coins without completing the SC redemption service is equivalent to delivering a car with no engine the core contracted service was never rendered. This legal framework is consistent with the regulatory direction taken by multiple U.S. jurisdictions, which have increasingly treated SC redemption rights as the primary economic product in sweepstakes casino transactions, directly undermining the " digital goods delivered '' defense that merchants in this space routinely assert in chargeback proceedings. Immediately after my purchases, the merchant sent XXXX written automated email confirmations promising to " verify and complete '' my redemption within " XXXX business hours. '' On XX/XX/XXXX, merchant agent " May '' confirmed in writing that my account was fully verified and nothing further was required. The merchant then refused to honor the XXXX promise, enforcing a hidden " XXXX Business Day '' ( XXXX calendar day ) policy a timeline that expires exactlyXX/XX/XXXXdays after XXXX 's XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX On XX/XX/XXXX, the merchant refused in writing to pay until XX/XX/XXXX, after my dispute window would close. The merchant holds an F rating from the Better Business Bureau ( XXXX complaints filed ; failure to respond to XXXX : XXXX ). Hundreds of Trustpilot reviews document the identical non-payment pattern. The merchant publicly acknowledged on XXXX that redemptions may take " XXXX business days XXXX XXXX '' an illusory term granting itself the right to withhold funds indefinitely. The merchant attempted to suppress negative reviews, flagging XXXX of themXX/XX/XXXXone-star ) ; XX/XX/XXXXof those flags were ruled invalid by XXXX. As of XX/XX/XXXX tomorrow the merchant will have violated even its own stated XXXX XXXX XXXX policy in my specific case, eliminating its sole remaining defense. I am filing this complaint today, the day before that deadline, to document Citi 's denial on the record before this final merchant defense collapses entirely. XXXX. THE EVIDENCE I SUBMITTED TO CITI On XX/XX/XXXX, I filed XXXX disputes with Citi and submitted the following documentation to XXXX confirmed received : XXXX. A XXXX Formal Dispute Dossier with XXXX labeled exhibits ( A-J ), including : XXXX written merchant confirmation emails promising XXXX hour completion ( Exhibit B ) ; written verification confirmation from merchant agent " May '' on XX/XX/XXXX ( Exhibit H ) ; the merchant 's written refusal to pay until after my dispute rights expired ( Exhibit D ) ; transaction records ( Exhibit C ) ; the merchant 's own website screenshot showing XXXX redemptions totaling {$1000.00} all in " Pending '' status, recovered before the merchant 's XXXX automated deletion window erased them ( Exhibit J ) ; Terms of Service excerpts proving Gold Coins have no monetary value ( Exhibit I ) ; Trustpilot graphs documenting complete service collapse from majority XXXX reviews in early XXXX to overwhelmingly XXXX by XX/XX/XXXX ( Exhibit F ) ; and the merchant 's own public admission of illusory terms ( Exhibit XXXX ). XXXX. A signed two-page Non-Receipt of Service Declaration executed under penalty of perjury. XXXX. XXXX XXXX supplemental response forms, completed and returned upon request. This constitutes exceptionally comprehensive cardholder evidence for a billing dispute of this nature. XXXX. CITI 'S FCBA NON-COMPLIANCE Violation XXXX Failure to Conduct a Reasonable, Substantive Investigation : Citi closed both disputes on XX/XX/XXXX XXXX calendar days after filing. Citi 's denial stated only that " the services or merchandise were provided '' the merchant 's standard digital goods defense without any acknowledgment of, or engagement with, the XXXX dossier comprehensively rebutting that exact defense. The FCBA requires a substantive investigation, not a procedural one. A reasonable investigation of a dispute of this complexity, supported by XXXX pages of documentary evidence across XXXX separate submissions, can not credibly conclude in XXXX calendar days with a one-sentence determination that adopts the merchant 's position verbatim. The record strongly indicates that Citi relied exclusively on the merchant 's assertion that digital goods were delivered, without reviewing the cardholder 's evidence establishing that the SC redemption service the predominant purpose of the transaction was never provided. This is not a reasonable investigation under the FCBA. Violation XXXX Failure to Provide Required Post-Decision Documentation and Written Explanation : Upon denial, the FCBA requires Citi to provide : ( a ) a written explanation of why the billing error claim was rejected, including identification of the evidence relied upon ; and ( b ) upon request, copies of the documentation the merchant submitted. Citi 's denial letter contained no explanation of the evidence reviewed, no description of what the merchant submitted, and no analysis of the competing claims only a conclusory one-sentence finding. When I formally requested the merchant 's rebuttal documentation on XX/XX/XXXX via Citi 's chat service, the agent refused, directing me to the phone dispute line. The phone dispute line maintained holds exceeding XXXX hours on multiple prior occasions, making the required documentation effectively inaccessible. Under the FCBA, I have a XXXX window to respond to Citi 's denial a right that Citi is actively preventing XXXX from exercising by refusing to provide the merchant 's documentation through any accessible channel. Additionally, Citi 's automated notification stated a decision document would be available online ; as of XX/XX/XXXX, no such document exists in my online account. Violation XXXX Pattern of Redundant Information Requests Inconsistent with Genuine Review : After receiving and confirming receipt of XXXX pages of comprehensive evidence on XX/XX/XXXX, Citi subsequently issued XXXX paper response forms requesting information already thoroughly documented in the submitted dossier and signed declaration including a description of what was purchased, what was expected, when the merchant was contacted, and their response. All of this was documented in exhaustive detail across the prior submissions. Requesting duplicative information while simultaneously closing the dispute in 20 days without engaging with the submitted evidence, and then refusing to provide the merchant 's rebuttal, is procedurally inconsistent with a good-faith FCBA investigation. IV. CURRENT STATUS AND REQUESTED RELIEF On XX/XX/XXXX, I escalated this matter via Citi 's chat service. Citi confirmed an Executive Response Unit escalation with a XXXX response window and agreed to reopen both disputes. I have a full transcript of this session. I intend to submit additional supplemental evidence within XXXX hours confirming that as of XX/XX/XXXX, the merchant has violated its own XXXX XXXX XXXX policy in my specific case eliminating the sole basis on which Citi denied my claim. This complaint is being filed today, XX/XX/XXXX, deliberately XXXX day before that deadline to preserve the full record. I am requesting the CFPB compel Citi to : ( XXXX ) immediately provide all merchant rebuttal documentation so I may exercise my FCBA right to respond ; ( XXXX ) conduct a genuine, substantive re-investigation of both disputes that engages with the submitted cardholder evidence ; ( XXXX ) reverse both denials and issue permanent credits of {$190.00} each ( {$390.00} total ) ; and ( XXXX ) address the procedural deficiencies in its dispute handling process that prevented a lawful investigation from occurring. I retain all rights to pursue arbitration against Citi and will exercise those rights if this matter is not resolved through this regulatory process.

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