Consumer complaint received 2026-07-13 00:00:00
Product: Credit card — General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Problem with a purchase shown on your statement — Card was charged for something you did not purchase with the card
Company: CITIBANK, N.A.
State: NY

Complaint narrative:
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX-against-\t\n\nCITIBANK, N.A.,XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXPlaintiff XXXX XXXX XXXX"Plaintiff" or "XXXX XXXX  appearing pro se, brings this Complaint against Defendant Citibank, N.A. ("Citibank" or "Defendant"), and alleges as follows:\n\nNATURE OF THE ACTION\n1.  This is a consumer protection action arising from Defendant Citibank, N.A.\'s unlawful handling of a billing dispute under the Fair Credit Billing Act, Truth in Lending Act, Consumer Financial Protection Act, and Fair Credit Reporting Act, and related New York State law claims.\n2.  On XXXX XXXX XXXX an unauthorized charge of $XXXX was posted to Plaintiff\'s Citibank credit card account by a merchant identified as XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX" located in XXXX, New York. Plaintiff never authorized this charge.\n3.  Plaintiff timely disputed the charge. Citibank opened a dispute case, issued a provisional credit, and requested additional documentation. Plaintiff fully cooperated, providing all requested information and confirming that the charge was unauthorized and that the merchant was wholly unresponsive.\n4.  Despite Plaintiff\'s full cooperation and the complete absence of any evidence of authorization, Citibank denied the dispute twice based on a legally fabricated evidentiary standard requiring Plaintiff to prove "the merchant was paid by another means." No such standard exists under federal law.\n5.  Citibank further threatened to report the disputed, unauthorized charge to XXXX XXXX and XXXX, in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.\n6.  Plaintiff brings this action to recover actual damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, and attorney\'s fees and costs, and to obtain injunctive and declaratory relief.\nJURISDICTION AND VENUE\n7.  Federal Question Jurisdiction.  This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.  1331 because this action arises under the laws of the United States, including the Fair Credit Billing Act (FCBA), 15 U.S.C.  1666 et seq.; the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C.  1601 et seq. and Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R.  1026.13; the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA), 12 U.S.C.  5531 and 5536; and the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C.  1681 et seq.\n8.  Supplemental Jurisdiction.  This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff\'s New York State law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C.  1367(a), as those claims are so related to the federal claims that they form part of the same case or controversy.\n9.  Venue.  Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C.  1391(b) because a substantial part of the events and omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this District; Citibank, N.A. maintains its principal place of business and legal department at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX New York XXXX, within this District; and Citibank\'s registered agent for service of legal process, XXXX XXXX XXXX is located at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, New York XXXX, within this District.\nPARTIES\n10.  Plaintiff XXXX XXXX is an individual residing at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX New York XXXX. At all relevant times, XXXX XXXX  was a cardholder and consumer as defined under the FCBA, TILA, FCRA, and CFPA.\n11.  Defendant Citibank, N.A. is a national banking association chartered and regulated under the laws of the United States. Citibank maintains its principal operations and legal department at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, New York XXXX. Citibank is a "creditor" and "card issuer" as defined under the FCBA and TILA, a "furnisher of information" as defined under the FCRA, and a "covered person" as defined under the CFPA. Citibank is also registered to do business in the State of New York.\nFACTUAL ALLEGATIONS\nA.  The Unauthorized Charge\n12.  On XXXX XXXX XXXX an unauthorized charge in the amount of $XXXX  was posted to XXXX XXXX  Citibank credit card account (Account No. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  by a merchant identified as "XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  New York.\n13.  XXXX XXXX did not authorize, approve, initiate, or benefit from this charge in any way. He had no prior relationship with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and received no goods or services in connection with the transaction.\n14.  XXXX XXXX attempted to contact the merchant to resolve the matter directly. All such attempts were met with complete non-response.\nB.  The Dispute and Provisional Credit\n15.  XXXX XXXX immediately contacted Citibank to dispute the unauthorized charge. Citibank opened Case ID XXXX and issued a provisional credit to XXXX XXXXs account while it purported to investigate.\n16.  Citibank requested additional documentation from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX fully and timely complied with all requests, providing detailed information confirming that the charge was unauthorized and that the merchant had failed to respond to his outreach.\nC.  Citibank\'s Unlawful Denial\n17.  Notwithstanding XXXX XXXX complete cooperation and the total absence of any evidence of authorization, Citibank reversed the provisional credit and denied the dispute.\n18.  By letter dated XXXX XXXX XXXX Citibank denied the dispute a second time, asserting that XXXX XXXX documentation failed to prove "the merchant was paid by another means."\n19.  The evidentiary standard applied by Citibank  requiring a cardholder to prove that a merchant was paid by alternative means  has no basis in the Fair Credit Billing Act, Regulation Z, or any other applicable federal or state law. It is a fabricated, internally-created standard designed to improperly shift the burden of proof to the consumer.\n20.  The sole legally relevant question under the FCBA is whether a charge was authorized by the cardholder. The charge was not authorized. Citibank produced no evidence of authorization  no signed receipt, no authorization log, no transaction record, no electronic data of any kind.\n21.  In the XXXX XXXX XXXX denial letter, Citibank also threatened to report XXXX XXXX account to the consumer reporting agencies XXXX XXXX, and XXXX  in connection with the disputed, unauthorized charge.\nCLAIMS FOR RELIEF\nCOUNT I Fair Credit Billing Act (FCBA) 15 U.S.C.  1666 et seq.\n22.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.\n23.  The FCBA requires a card issuer, upon receipt of a billing error notice, to conduct a reasonable investigation and either correct the billing error or provide the cardholder with a written explanation setting forth the reasons for the card issuer\'s belief that the billing statement was correct.\n24.  The unauthorized charge of $XXXX  constitutes a "billing error" as defined in 15 U.S.C.  1666(b), specifically as a charge for property or services not accepted by the obligor or not delivered to the obligor as agreed.\n25.  Citibank failed to conduct a reasonable investigation. Citibank denied XXXX XXXX  dispute without obtaining, producing, or relying upon any competent evidence of authorization  no signed receipt, no authorization record, no point-of-sale data, no electronic authorization record, and no evidence whatsoever that XXXX XXXX authorized or benefited from the charge.\n26.  Citibank\'s denial was based on a legally fabricated standard requiring Plaintiff to prove payment by alternative means  a standard that does not exist under the FCBA.\n27.  As a direct and proximate result of Citibank\'s violations of the FCBA, Plaintiff has suffered actual damages including the $XXXX  charge, associated interest and fees, damage to his credit, and emotional XXXX.\n28.  Pursuant to 15 U.S.C.  1640, Plaintiff is entitled to actual damages, statutory damages, and attorney\'s fees and costs.\nCOUNT II Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and Regulation Z 15 U.S.C.  1601 et seq.; 12 C.F.R.  1026.13\n29.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.\n30.  Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R.  1026.13, establishes mandatory procedural protections for consumers who dispute billing errors, including specific requirements governing the card issuer\'s investigation, notification obligations, and the handling of provisional credits.\n31.  Citibank violated Regulation Z by: (a) failing to properly notify Plaintiff of documentation requirements in a lawful and complete manner; (b) applying an unlawful evidentiary standard to deny the dispute; and (c) improperly reversing the provisional credit in the absence of any competent evidence of authorization, in violation of 12 C.F.R.  1026.13.\n32.  As a direct and proximate result of Citibank\'s violations of TILA and Regulation Z, Plaintiff has suffered actual damages and is entitled to statutory damages, actual damages, and attorney\'s fees and costs pursuant to 15 U.S.C.  1640.\nCOUNT III Consumer Financial Protection Act UDAAP 12 U.S.C.  5531 and 5536\n33.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.\n34.  Citibank is a "covered person" within the meaning of 12 U.S.C.  5481(6). The CFPA prohibits covered persons from engaging in any unfair, deceptive, or abusive act or practice in connection with any consumer financial product or service.\n35.  Deceptive:  Citibank represented to Plaintiff and to cardholders generally that unauthorized charges would be investigated and resolved in accordance with applicable law. Citibank\'s actual conduct applying a fabricated evidentiary standard to deny valid unauthorized charge disputes materially contradicts those representations and is likely to mislead reasonable consumers.\n36.  Unfair:  Citibank\'s denial of XXXX XXXX valid dispute causes substantial injury to consumers, is not reasonably avoidable by consumers, and is not outweighed by any countervailing benefit to consumers or competition.\n37.  Abusive:  Citibank took unreasonable advantage of Plaintiff\'s inability to effectively protect his own interests by inventing a legally non-existent burden of proof and threatening adverse credit reporting for a charge that Plaintiff never authorized.\n38.  As a direct and proximate result of Citibank\'s UDAAP violations, Plaintiff has suffered actual damages. Plaintiff seeks all available relief including actual damages, restitution, and injunctive relief.\nCOUNT IV Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) 15 U.S.C.  1681 et seq.\n39.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.\n40.  Citibank is a "furnisher of information" to consumer reporting agencies within the meaning of 15 U.S.C.  1681s-2.\n41.  In its XXXX XXXX XXXX letter, Citibank expressly threatened to report XXXX XXXX  account to XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX  in connection with the disputed, unauthorized charge of $XXXX.\n42.  The reporting or threatened reporting of information that Citibank knows or should know is inaccurate  specifically, that XXXX XXXX owes a debt for a charge he never authorized and that is the subject of a pending dispute  constitutes a violation of the FCRA\'s accuracy and dispute requirements.\n43.  Citibank\'s willful and/or negligent failure to conduct a proper investigation before threatening adverse credit reporting, and its intent to report inaccurate information in connection with a disputed unauthorized charge, violates 15 U.S.C.  1681s-2(a) and 1681n/o.\n44.  As a direct and proximate result of Citibank\'s FCRA violations, Plaintiff has suffered actual damages including damage to his creditworthiness, emotional distress, and reputational harm, and is entitled to actual damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, and attorney\'s fees and costs pursuant to 15 U.S.C.  1681n and 1681o.\nCOUNT V New York General Business Law  349 Deceptive Acts and Practices\n45.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.\n46.  New York General Business Law  349 prohibits deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business, trade, or commerce in the State of New York.\n47.  Citibank\'s conduct  applying a legally fabricated evidentiary standard to deny consumer billing disputes in New York, and threatening adverse credit reporting for charges that consumers never authorized  constitutes consumer-oriented conduct that is materially misleading and has a broad impact on consumers at large.\n48.  Plaintiff suffered actual injury as a result of Citibank\'s deceptive acts and practices, including the loss of $XXXX, credit damage, and emotional XXXX.\n49.  Pursuant to GBL  349(h), Plaintiff is entitled to actual damages or $XXXX  minimum statutory damages per violation, whichever is greater, treble damages up to $XXXX, and attorney\'s fees.\nCOUNT VI New York General Business Law  350 False Advertising\n50.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.\n51.  New York General Business Law  350 prohibits false advertising in the conduct of any business in the State of New York.\n52.  Citibank advertises and represents to prospective and existing cardholders, including in its cardholder agreements and marketing materials, that cardholders are protected against unauthorized charges and that Citibank will investigate and resolve such disputes in accordance with applicable law.\n53.  These representations are false and misleading in light of Citibank\'s actual practice of denying valid unauthorized charge disputes using fabricated evidentiary standards, as demonstrated by its treatment of XXXX XXXX54.  Plaintiff suffered actual injury as a result of Citibank\'s false advertising and is entitled to the remedies provided under GBL  350-e.\nCOUNT VII Breach of Contract\n55.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.\n56.  Plaintiff and Citibank are parties to a valid and binding cardholder agreement governing the use of XXXX XXXX credit card account.\n57.  The cardholder agreement obligates Citibank to investigate billing disputes and to resolve unauthorized charge disputes in good faith and in accordance with applicable law.\n58.  Citibank materially breached the cardholder agreement by: (a) failing to conduct a reasonable or good faith investigation of XXXX XXXX  dispute; (b) denying the dispute based on a legally non-existent evidentiary standard; (c) reversing the provisional credit without competent evidence of authorization; and (d) threatening to report inaccurate information to consumer reporting agencies in connection with an unauthorized charge.\n59.  As a direct and proximate result of Citibank\'s breach of contract, Plaintiff has suffered actual damages in an amount to be proven at trial, including the unauthorized charge of $XXXX, associated interest and fees, and consequential damages.\nCOUNT VIII Common Law Negligence\n60.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.\n61.  Citibank owed Plaintiff a duty of reasonable care in the investigation and resolution of billing disputes, including the duty to obtain competent evidence before denying a consumer\'s claim of an unauthorized charge.\n62.  Citibank breached this duty by failing to conduct even a minimally competent investigation, by applying a fabricated standard of proof, by denying the dispute in the complete absence of any authorization evidence, and by threatening adverse credit reporting for an unverified, disputed, unauthorized charge.\n63.  As a direct and proximate result of Citibank\'s negligence, Plaintiff suffered actual damages including the unauthorized charge of $XXXX, associated fees, credit damage, and emotional XXXX.\nPRAYER FOR RELIEF\nWHEREFORE, Plaintiff XXXX XXXX respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment against Defendant Citibank, N.A. as follows:\n\tAn order requiring Citibank to permanently reverse and credit the unauthorized charge of $XXXX, plus all accrued interest and fees associated therewith;\n\tActual damages in an amount to be proven at trial;\n\tStatutory damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C.  1640 (FCBA/TILA), 15 U.S.C.  1681n and 1681o (FCRA), and New York General Business Law  349;\n\tPunitive damages as authorized by applicable law;\n\tAn injunction requiring Citibank to immediately rescind any adverse credit reporting made or threatened against Plaintiff\'s account in connection with this dispute;\n\tAn injunction requiring Citibank to reopen and lawfully reinvestigate Case ID XXXX in accordance with the FCBA and Regulation Z;\n\tDeclaratory relief stating that Citibank\'s application of a "paid by another means" evidentiary standard in billing disputes violates the FCBA and constitutes an unfair, deceptive, or abusive act or practice under the CFPA;\n\tReasonable attorney\'s fees and costs pursuant to 15 U.S.C.  1640, 15 U.S.C.  1681n/o, New York GBL  349, and all other applicable law;\n\tPre-judgment and post-judgment interest as permitted by law; and\n\tSuch other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.\n\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n\n/s/ XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  New York XXXX'

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