Consumer complaint received 2026-05-14 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: CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION
State: TN

Complaint narrative:
I am filing this complaint because Capital One failed to reasonably investigate my billing dispute regarding a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX purchased from XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX, despite substantial evidence that the merchandise was materially misrepresented and defective. At the time of purchase, I specifically questioned the salesperson because the packaging appeared unusual for a supposedly brand-new XXXX product. I was expressly assured that the item was new. The item was never represented to me as open-box, refurbished, display inventory, or used merchandise. I purchased the product under the understanding that it was a normal factory-new XXXX product with valid manufacturer warranty coverage. Within approximately one and a half weeks of purchase, the XXXX began malfunctioning and emitting a burning smell. This was a serious safety issue, not a minor dissatisfaction or buyers remorse situation. Notably, the merchant never disputed that the unit developed a burning smell or that there was a safety-related defect. XXXX ultimately replaced the unit because of the circumstances and safety concern. After discovering the defect, I immediately began attempting to resolve the matter directly with XXXX XXXX before disputing the charge. I contacted the store directly, called the corporate office multiple times, left messages with employees, contacted district and regional management, and escalated the matter through every available channel. I also provided Capital One with call logs documenting my attempts to resolve the issue directly with the merchant. Capital One nevertheless continued asserting that I failed to attempt resolution with the merchant, even after the merchants own rebuttal materials confirmed multiple conversations with me regarding : * the defect, * the burning/safety issue, * refund or replacement requests, * and my concerns that the unit was not truly new. The merchants own rebuttal directly contradicts Capital Ones repeated position that I did not attempt to resolve the issue. XXXX XXXX themselves documented that I contacted them about the product, complained about the burning issue, raised concerns about the manufacturing date and whether the item was used, and requested a replacement or refund. Capital One ignored the merchants own admissions while continuing to tell me I lacked proof of attempted resolution. Despite this evidence, Capital One repeatedly demanded forms of proof that do not reasonably exist in this situation, including text message communications with the store ( the store does not communicate by text ) and recordings of in-person conversations. Capital One also demanded that I obtain a signed letter from XXXX on company letterhead. XXXX is a multinational corporation, and it is not realistic for a consumer to force XXXX XXXX Escalations to issue a custom signed legal-style letter for a credit card dispute. Capital One ignored the substance of the evidence I provided and instead focused on arbitrary formatting demands. Additionally, Capital One repeatedly closed the dispute while I was actively attempting to gather and submit the documentation they requested. Each time the dispute was closed, access to portions of the documentation process became more difficult and forced me to repeatedly re-open, re-submit, and re-explain evidence that was already provided. This created an unfair and unreasonable process where I was continuously attempting to comply while Capital One repeatedly shut down the investigation instead of meaningfully evaluating the evidence. XXXX provided detailed written documentation directly tied to the serial number of the unit. This information came from XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX Escalations, not a generic customer service representative. On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX confirmed by email that warranty determinations are based on serial number history when there is no XXXX proof of purchase associated with the account. XXXX confirmed that serial number XXXX was already almost 8 months out of warranty. XXXX still agreed to exchange the product free of charge because of the situation. On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX provided additional serial-number-level product history confirming : * Product : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX - XXXX * Serial Number : XXXX * Date of manufacture : XX/XX/XXXX * XXXX records showed the unit was first sold to third-party reseller XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX XXXX This timeline directly contradicts the impression created at the time of sale that I was purchasing a normal factory-new XXXX product with a valid manufacturer warranty. A reasonable consumer purchasing a product represented as new would not expect to receive a unit manufactured nearly two years earlier, already nearly eight months outside manufacturer warranty coverage, and previously sold through a third-party reseller chain before reaching the retailer. XXXX XXXX never produced actual documentary proof showing the item was factory-new inventory with a valid manufacturer warranty at the time of sale. Instead, the merchant merely claimed the product appeared new. XXXX serial-number records are objective manufacturer records, while the merchant only offered employee opinions and assumptions. In fact, XXXX XXXX own rebuttal materials submitted to Capital One actually support my position and raise internal doubts about the products status. In the merchants own internal email chain, an employee asked : Whats the story here? Was it a display? Another internal message submitted by the merchant stated : He purchased what he thought was a new XXXX item, but XXXX informed him it was used. Those statements came from the merchants own submitted materials and directly undermine their claim that the product was unquestionably new. The merchant also admitted in its rebuttal that : * I raised concerns that the item was used, * I raised concerns about the manufacturing date, * I complained that the unit smelled like it was burning, * and I requested resolution after the defect appeared. The merchant attempted to rely on the fact that I initially left a positive review shortly after purchase. That argument is irrelevant because the defect and warranty/manufacturing issues were not yet known to me at the time I left the review. A product can initially appear satisfactory and later prove defective or materially misrepresented. The merchant also attempted to create the misleading impression that I delayed reporting the issue by stating I contacted them around XX/XX/XXXX. That characterization is incomplete and misleading. The unit began malfunctioning within approximately one and a half weeks of purchase after XX/XX/XXXX, and I began attempting to resolve the matter promptly. My outreach efforts continued through repeated escalations because I was not receiving meaningful assistance. Importantly, my dispute was never based solely on warranty coverage. My dispute is based on the combination of : * material misrepresentation of the product as new, * evidence the item had prior reseller history and abnormal warranty status, * the safety-related defect involving a burning smell, * and the merchants failure to reasonably resolve the issue after repeated escalation attempts. Capital One never explained why verified manufacturer serial-number records, merchant internal contradictions, call logs, proof of a safety-related replacement, and the merchants own admissions were all supposedly insufficient evidence. Instead, Capital One repeatedly shifted the burden onto me to produce forms of evidence that a normal consumer would not reasonably possess. Capital One failed to reconcile the obvious contradictions and evidence in this dispute : * XXXX confirmed the unit was almost eight months out of warranty. * XXXX confirmed the unit had prior third-party reseller history through XXXX XXXX XXXX * XXXX replaced the unit because of the situation and safety concern. * XXXX XXXX internally questioned whether the item was display inventory. * XXXX XXXX own submitted documents referenced XXXX informing me the unit was used. * The unit developed a burning smell shortly after purchase. * I made repeated documented efforts to resolve the matter directly with the merchant. * The merchants own rebuttal confirmed that I contacted them regarding the issue. Instead of fairly evaluating this evidence, Capital One repeatedly focused on impossible or unreasonable evidentiary demands while disregarding the verified manufacturer documentation and the merchants own contradictory statements. I am requesting that the CFPB review whether Capital One conducted a reasonable investigation into this billing dispute and whether Capital One improperly denied my claim despite substantial evidence of defective and materially misrepresented merchandise.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation