Consumer complaint received 2026-03-17 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: FL

Complaint narrative:
SUBJECT : FCBA Violation by Citibank - Refusal to Investigate Documented Merchant Fraud ( Case # XXXX ) I am filing this formal complaint against Citibank for violating the Fair Credit Billing Act ( FCBA ). Citibank is enabling merchant fraud by refusing to review exculpatory, legally binding evidence. A merchant ( XXXX XXXX ) fraudulently charged my card {$1800.00} for pre-existing vehicle damage. Despite providing Citibank with a physical document signed by the merchant 's own employee proving the damage was pre-existing, Citibank closed my dispute stating " the rental car agencies have final audit ability, '' effectively abdicating their legal duty to investigate fraud. TIMELINE OF EVENTS : XX/XX/year> ( Vehicle Pick-up ) : I picked up a rental car from XXXX in XXXX. Before leaving the lot, I requested a physical inspection. A XXXX agent manually marked pre-existing scratches on the front bumper with " X '' XXXX on an official " Minor Damage Register '' and signed/initialed it. ( Evidence attached : Signed document & time-stamped photo of the agent filling it out at XXXX AM ). XX/XX/year> ( XXXX XXXX ) : I returned the vehicle. XX/XX/year> ( The XXXX XXXX ) : XXXX billed my Citibank card {$3100.00}. This included an un-invoiced phantom fuel charge AND {$1800.00} for the EXACT same pre-existing bumper damage their own agent had already signed off on. XX/XX/year> ( Dispute Opened ) : I opened a dispute with Citibank specifically for the {$1800.00} fraudulent damage charge. XX/XX/year> ( The Automated Error & Formal Appeal Submitted ) : XXXX issued a partial refund of {$310.00} to cover the unrelated phantom fuel charge. XXXX automated system improperly assumed this resolved the dispute and reversed my provisional credit. I immediately called to reopen the case and submitted my " FORMAL APPEAL & COMPREHENSIVE EVIDENCE SUMMARY, '' which included the " Minor Damage Register '' signed by the XXXX agent. XX/XX/year> ( Addendum Exposing Merchant Fraud Submitted ) : After reviewing XXXX 17-page defense provided by Citibank, I submitted an " ADDENDUM TO APPEAL - REBUTTAL TO MERCHANT 'S SUBMISSION. '' I explicitly showed Citibank that XXXX was committing procedural fraud by : Fabricating claims of " pet waste, smoke, and dirt '' nowhere found in their own damage report. Confirming the XXXX refund was for an unrelated overbilling, not the damage. Deliberately withholding the signed " Minor Damage Register '' from their submission to the bank to conceal the pre-existing damage. XX/XX/year> ( Citibank 's FCBA Violation ) : Completely ignoring my detailed appeals and the irrefutable proof of merchant fraud submitted on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, Citibank issued a final rejection letter stating : " The rental car agencies have final audit ability for billing purposes. We can not mandate the merchant issue credit. This investigation will remain closed. '' CONCLUSION & DESIRED RESOLUTION : Citibank is allowing a merchant to use their network to extort consumers. Blanketly stating that a merchant has " final audit ability '' to charge whatever they wanteven when the consumer has explicitly exposed fabricated claims and provided a signed document from the merchant proving the charge is fraudulentis a blatant violation of consumer protection laws.

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 monetary relief