Consumer complaint received 2026-04-20 00:00:00
Product: Credit card — General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Advertising and marketing, including promotional offers — Didn't receive advertised or promotional terms
Company: CITIBANK, N.A.
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
On XX/XX/XXXX, I activated a promotional offer on my My Best Buy Visa credit card offering a {$70.00} reward certificate for $ XXXX in spend outside Best Buy between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. I made qualifying purchases throughout the window. On XX/XX/XXXX the final day I made two transactions totaling {$400.00} to XXXX ( XXXX XXXX subscriptions ), with confirmation emails timestamped XX/XX/XXXX. These transactions posted on XX/XX/XXXX. Including them, my qualifying spend was {$2300.00} ; excluding them, {$1900.00}. I acknowledge that, on careful review, the promotional terms do reference posting date a criterion I did not discover until re-reading the original offer email earlier today while preparing this complaint. Had any of the ten-plus representatives I spoke with over two weeks simply explained this, I would have accepted the denial and closed the matter. Instead, two Best Buy representatives ( XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX and XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX ) affirmatively told me the {$70.00} certificate had been issued, sending me on in-store visits and additional calls to track down a certificate that apparently does not exist. My complaint is therefore not primarily about the denial itself, but about the two weeks of runaround, contradictory information from multiple representatives, and a chat agent 's unilateral termination of my dispute all of which were avoidable had any representative accurately communicated the actual eligibility criterion. Two Weeks of Runaround Over approximately two weeks, I was transferred between Best Buy and Citibank no fewer than ten times, with each party directing me to the other. At one point I had a Best Buy agent and a Citi agent on the phone simultaneously with no resolution. Notably, the " regarding rewards '' menu option on the number printed on my card routes exclusively to Best Buy agents; reaching a Citibank banking agent required me to falsely claim a payment issue. XX/XX/XXXX ( chat, Best Buy ) : XXXX XXXX incorrectly claimed the reward had been fulfilled via points from a separate, concurrent promotion. XX/XX/XXXX ( chat, Best Buy ) : XXXX XXXX opened XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX and directed me to a " Special Team '' at the number on my card. XX/XX/XXXX ( phone, Best Buy ) : XXXX XXXX confirmed the {$70.00} certificate had been issued on their end with an XX/XX/XXXX expiration, but stated it was not visible in my online account and instructed me to visit a Best Buy store. XX/XX/XXXX ( phone, Best Buy ) : XXXX XXXX independently confirmed the same : the {$70.00} certificate had been issued with an XX/XX/XXXX expiration. In-store visits ( XXXX ) : Staff could not locate any certificate. XXXX XXXX coordinated with store staff by phone ; both then referred me back to Citibank. Citibank ( phone ) : Only reachable after I claimed a payment issue. Agent XXXX acknowledged rewards are Best Buyadministered, stayed on the line while we looped in a Best Buy agent, escalated to a supervisor, and opened Case ID XXXX. I was told to expect an email within XXXX hours. No email was ever sent. XXXX Best Buy representatives ( XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX and XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX ) independently told me the {$70.00} certificate had been issued with an XX/XX/XXXX expiration. This is either a serious pattern of misinformation or the certificate was in fact issued and then lost in Best Buy 's system. Neither possibility has been addressed. Denial and Terminated Chat ( XX/XX/XXXX ) Following up on XXXX ID XXXX via chat, agent XXXX stated the review was denied because the qualifying total " did not reach {$2000.00} '' i.e., the XXXX XX/XX/XXXX transactions were excluded based on their XX/XX/XXXX posting dates. I informed her I had confirmation receipts showing the XX/XX/XXXX authorization timestamps and was willing to provide them ; the chat interface had no attachment option, and she did not request them by any other means. I made multiple explicit requests for supervisor escalation to review the authorizations. The agent stated that a supervisor " would see the same data '' and that escalation was therefore unnecessary. She then unilaterally terminated the chat, citing the conversation as " becoming unproductive, '' while my dispute remained unresolved. I have preserved the complete chat transcript. Why This Is Unfair Treatment Regardless of the underlying eligibility determination, the pattern of conduct two representatives confirming a certificate that can not be located, ten+ transfers between entities that each deflect to the other, a menu system that routes rewards inquiries exclusively to one party, a promised supervisor follow-up email that never arrived, and a chat agent unilaterally refusing escalation and terminating contact mid-dispute constitutes unfair treatment and a failure of basic dispute resolution process.

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