Consumer complaint received 2026-01-08 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: PA

Complaint narrative:
I am submitting this complaint regarding how Capital One handled my dispute of an {$890.00} annual subscription charge from XXXX, billed on XX/XX/year> to my Quicksilver credit card. 

XXXX markets its service as providing real-time verified XXXX emails, a 95 % + data accuracy guarantee, verified emails only, and states that it does not charge customers for invalid email addresses. These representations were central to my decision to purchase an annual subscription. My intended use case was outreach to functional, integrative, holistic, and XXXX XXXX clinics. 

In actual use, the service did not perform as described for this stated purpose. The data was largely unusable : out of approximately XXXX leads reviewed, only about XXXX were valid contacts. When attempting to verify emails in order to export them to my XXXX, XXXX own system flagged the vast majority of contacts as invalid email, and multiple addresses that were initially marked as valid by XXXX still bounced when used. This outcome is inconsistent with the advertised 95 % accuracy guarantee and the promise that invalid emails would not be shown or charged. 

I contacted XXXX promptly in XX/XX/year>, less than two weeks into the subscription term, explained that their platform appeared to lack accurate data coverage for my niche, and requested a refund for non-delivery of service as described. XXXX refused, citing an all sales are final policy, despite their own marketing and emails emphasizing verified emails and accuracy guarantees. 

I then disputed the charge with Capital One. The dispute was initially closed without Capital One requesting documentation from me. After I requested the case be reopened, I submitted a signed explanation letter and the full email correspondence with XXXX. Capital One closed the case again, stating that my submission lacked sufficient documentation, without specifying what was missing. 

After speaking with a supervisor, I was instructed to submit documentation matching Capital Ones listed categories and told I did not need to re-upload materials already provided. Using Capital Ones secure upload link, I submitted : Proof of my refund request and XXXX  refusal Documentation of the {$890.00} annual charge Emails from XXXX  confirming my annual plan and credit allocation XXXX  marketing emails and website screenshots stating verified emails only and a 95 % accuracy guarantee A screenshot showing I was unable to log into my XXXX  account, which further limited my ability to gather additional in-platform evidence at Capital Ones request Despite submitting exactly the types of documentation Capital One requested, Capital One issued a final denial stating that my response lacks all of the previously requested information needed to validate your dispute, without identifying any specific deficiency. I was told to work directly with the merchant, even though I had already done so and documented those efforts. 

My concerns are twofold : The underlying charge is for a service that was not delivered as described, given the clear gap between XXXX accuracy and verification promises and the largely unusable data I received for my stated use case. 

Capital One appears to have closed my dispute by deferring to the merchants all sales are final terms while inaccurately characterizing my extensive submissions as lacking required documentation, rather than meaningfully evaluating the evidence provided under a services not as described standard. 

Capital Ones own description of its dispute process states that customers are given an opportunity to submit additional evidence if an initial decision favors the merchant. In my case, I submitted multiple rounds of documentation matching Capital Ones stated requirements, yet the dispute was repeatedly closed without a clear explanation of what evidence was missing or why my submissions were deemed insufficient. 

I am requesting that this matter be reviewed for procedural fairness and that Capital One be required to either ( a ) properly evaluate my dispute as a services not as described claim, or ( b ) clearly identify what specific evidence it contends was missing and why the documentation I provided did not meet its requirements.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation