Consumer complaint received 2025-09-23 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:
Issue Type : Credit card dispute unauthorized charge Company : Citi Bank What Happened I am disputing a {$5000.00} charge made by XXXX XXXX XXXX a law firm, to my credit card. This charge was unauthorized and fraudulent, and my bank mishandled the dispute process in violation of the Fair Credit Billing Act ( FCBA, 15 U.S.C. 1666 ). 

This {$5000.00} unauthorized charge has caused me significant financial hardship, as I have been forced to carry an unlawful balance. It has also negatively impacted my credit score because the balance continues to report against my available credit, despite the fact that it stems from a fraudulent and unauthorized transaction that should never have been allowed to stand. 




Key Facts XXXX. Contract terms My retainer contract ( Exhibit A ) states that trial fees of {$5000.00} are due only at the time a date is set and solely for the purpose of trial preparation ( trial briefs, witness lists, exhibits ). 
XXXX. Cancellation request On the same day the court set an evidentiary hearing, I immediately requested to cancel with the law firm. Instead of processing my request, the firm made me wait to meet with the law firms owner and my attorney on XX/XX/XXXX, when they formally accepted my cancellation. This was one week before the {$5000.00} charge was billed to my credit card. I have written confirmation of this cancellation ( Exhibit B ). 
XXXX. Unauthorized charge Despite my cancellation being accepted before the charge, the law firm did not bill me at the time a date was set as the contract specifies. Instead, they waited until after my cancellation was confirmed and then charged my card without my authorization. 
XXXX. After-the-fact emails Following the charge, the firm sent me repeated XXXX emails asking me XXXX sign a receipt for the {$5000.00} ( Exhibit C ). This proves they did not have prior authorization and were attempting to create retroactive consent. 
XXXX. No services rendered Because I canceled, no trial preparation ( briefs, witness lists, or exhibits ) was ever initiated, making the charge baseless under the stated purpose of the fee. 




Merchant Misrepresentation The law firm falsely told my bank that I did not cancel until after the charge. 
This is untrue. My cancellation was accepted on XX/XX/XXXX, a full week before the charge was processed. I submitted this proof to my bank. 




Bank Mishandling Even after I submitted proof that the merchant lied about the cancellation timeline, my bank rejected my appeal. 
The banks final letter ( Exhibit D ) states : We asked the merchant for credit, the merchant refused, and we are closing the case. 
This demonstrates my bank did not independently investigate, as required under the FCBA. Instead, they treated my claim as a simple refund request and deferred entirely to the merchants refusal.

Closing the dispute solely because a merchant refused is a direct violation of the Fair Credit Billing Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1666 ), which requires banks to determine whether a charge was authorized not to defer to a merchants refusal. 





Why This is Unauthorized I canceled before the charge. 
No trial prep was ever performed. 
The merchant admitted ( in writing ) the fee is only for the sole purpose of preparing for trial yet they charged me despite no preparation being done. 
The repeated XXXX emails prove the firm did not have my authorization when they ran my card. 

This is not a refund dispute. It is an unauthorized charge outside the contract, obtained fraudulently. 





Trial vs. Evidentiary Hearing The contract clearly states that the {$5000.00} fee applies only when a trial date is set. In my case, the court did not set a trial date it set an Evidentiary Hearing. Under California law, an evidentiary hearing is a distinct proceeding, limited to resolving specific contested issues, and is not the same as a trial. The contract does not mention evidentiary hearings, nor does it authorize a {$5000.00} fee for them. If the law firm intended to apply this fee to evidentiary hearings, it had the duty to write that explicitly. Any ambiguity must be interpreted against the drafter ( the law firm ), not the client. Therefore, because the court scheduled only an evidentiary hearing, the contractual condition for imposing a {$5000.00} trial fee was never met. 

According to California Family Law resources and court self-help guides ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX ) XXXX an evidentiary hearing is not a full trial. It resolves limited issues ; a trial is a final hearing resolving all contested issues and issuing final orders. Because my court date was labeled an evidentiary hearing, the contracts trigger trial date set for the {$5000.00} fee was not met. 





XXXX XXXX vs. Federal Law The law firms contract includes a clause stating that credit card payments are non-refundable, that clients shall not be permitted to register complaints with credit card companies, and that no chargebacks are allowed. 

This clause is unenforceable because federal law, specifically the Fair Credit Billing Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1666 ), guarantees my right to dispute unauthorized charges with my credit card issuer. A private contract can not override or waive federal consumer protections.

By deferring to the merchants refusal and effectively treating this contract clause as controlling, my bank failed to apply the protections of the FCBA and closed the case improperly. 





Requested Resolution 1. CFPB should require Citi Bank to reopen this case and comply with the Fair Credit Billing Act by properly investigating.

2. The {$5000.00} charge should be reversed as an unauthorized transaction.

3. CFPB should consider whether Citi Bank violated FCBA by closing the dispute simply because the merchant refused, ignoring my documented proof.

4. CFPB should require Citi Bank to remedy the harm caused by its mishandling, including any negative impact on my credit score resulting from being forced to carry this fraudulent charge.

Attachments ( Exhibits ) Exhibit A Retainer contract excerpts ( Section 10 : trial fee terms ; Section 14 : credit card payments ). 
Exhibit B Written cancellation confirmation ( XX/XX/XXXX ) with law firms owner and attorney, showing cancellation before the charge. 
Exhibit C Credit card statement showing {$5000.00} charge after cancellation, plus XXXX receipt-request emails proving no prior authorization. 
Exhibit D Banks denial letter ( merchant refused, case closed ).

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