Consumer complaint received 2025-12-02 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 disputing a charge for the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ), marketed as a spiritual retreat, because the services I paid for were never provided due to a severe weather event ( Hurricane XXXX ) that disrupted international travel on XX/XX/25. I was at the airport, and the organizer spoke directly to the airline ticket agent, who confirmed my flight was canceled. I provided supporting airline documentation showing this was out of control. 

Despite acknowledging cancellation, the organizer advised me to take a XXXX flight the next day to XXXX XXXX XXXX no guaranteed onward travel to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX the retreat location ) because the international flight had already departed. As a woman traveling alone, this would have put my personal safety at risk and still would not ensure access to the retreat services. 

The event was marketed as a XXXX spiritual retreat focused on faith-based community, which created a reasonable expectation of compassionate handling of unforeseen circumstances. Instead, I was left in a position where no service was delivered to me despite full payment. 

Organizer later informed my credit card company that I supposedly have a hotel credit in XXXX, but I haven't received written documentation or confirmation of any such credit from either the organizer or the hotel. 

The merchant relied on Clause # XXXX of the retreat agreement to deny any refund, which states : " I voluntarily and willingly assume all risks, both known and unknown, foreseeable or unforeseeable, in any way connected to my participation in 'Retreat ' or my stay in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX '' This clause was applied to keep the funds DESPITE THE FACT NO SERVICE WAS PROVIDED, and no safe or reasonable alternative was provided. and no part of my stay in XXXX occurred. I do not believe it is fair or lawful to use a broad assumption-of-risk clause to deny reimbursement when the consumer was physically unable to attend due to weather-related travel disruption confirmed by the airline and acknowledged by the organizer. 

I have attempted multiple times to resolve this through my credit card company, but they denied my dispute solely on the basis that I signed a binding contract with this assumption-of-risk clause. However, federal billing dispute rules require the issuer to determine whether the merchant actually delivered the service for which payment was made. The issuer did not require the merchant to provide proof that I was provided any usable accommodation or hotel credit, or proof that services were delivered to me. They relied exclusively on the contract language and did not address that no services were rendered and that travel to the destination was impossible at that time. A merchant contract can not override consumer protections when the paid services is not provided. 

I am requesting a FULL REIMBURSEMENT of the charged amounts because the merchant failed to provide the service to me, made unverified claims during the dispute process, and my card issuer did not adequately protect me under federal dispute resolution rules for services not received. 

XXXX 's Irrelevant Claim Regarding Other Attendees : The merchant stated that other attendees were able to travel and attend the retreat. However, the ability of other consumers to reach the destination has no bearing on whether the services I paid for were actually provided to ME. Federal billing protections evaluate whether I, the cardholder, received the service I was charged for. My travel was disrupted and confirmed and canceled by the airline, the merchant acknowledged ( by phone call ) the cancellation, and I did not receive the service. Therefore, whether others attended does not negate the fact that the merchant failed to provide the contracted service to me specifically. 

Applicable Law : My dispute falls under the Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ) and Regulation Z ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ), which requires that credit card issuers determine whether the merchant actually delivered goods or services charged to the card. Because the merchant did not provide the services to me, and no reasonable alternative for me was made available, I should not be held liable for the charges.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation