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 — Card was charged for something you did not purchase with the card
Company: AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
I am submitting this complaint regarding American Expresss handling and closure of my dispute for unauthorized charges. 

Unauthorized charges began appearing on my American Express card in XX/XX/year> and continued for several months, totaling {$14000.00}. This credit card is used solely for travel purposes, which is why it is not reviewed frequently. When I eventually discovered the charges, I learned they were made by my XXXX son using an old phone that still contained stored payment credentials. 

American Express closed my case after determining that I authorized the charges because I allowed my minor son to use the old phone. This conclusion is flawed and not aligned with consumer protection principles or fair billing standards. 

I did not authorize my son to use my credit card or to make any financial transactions. I only permitted limited, non-financial use of a device, such as watching videos. Permission to access a device does not constitute express or implied authorization to use stored payment credentials or to conduct financial transactions. Authorization requires knowing and intentional consent to payment activity, which I did not provide. 

The charges were made by my XXXX son, a minor who lacks legal capacity to enter binding contracts. I did not approve, ratify, or knowingly permit these transactions. Treating device access as equivalent to payment authorization ignores the legal distinction between access and authority, particularly where a minor is involved. 

Several procedural concerns occurred during this process : Misclassification and routing loop American Express stated that the dispute was reviewed by the billing dispute department and then routed back to fraud, where it was closed. This resulted in no department making a substantive determination regarding authorization, and the case was closed due to internal routing rules rather than a fair evaluation. 

Inconsistent reasoning by representatives Representatives stated that I was responsible for my old device, implying that responsibility for device security equates to authorization of financial transactions. This reasoning conflates assumed risk with consent and shifts liability without establishing that authorization was knowingly given. 

Procedural convenience over fairness The case was closed under a narrow fraud definition after a prolonged investigation, despite the fact that this involved unauthorized charges made by a minor. This outcome appears procedurally convenient rather than a fair application of consumer billing protections.

Delay causing loss of recovery opportunity The investigation took over a month to conclude, during which time potential recovery options were diminished. Not a single charge was refunded, despite the significant total amount and the circumstances involved. 

At no point did American Express allege that I personally made the charges or acted dishonestly. Instead, the denial was based on internal policy assumptions that device access equals payment authorization. This standard is unreasonable and inconsistent with the principle that authorization must be intentional, knowing, and specific to financial transactions. 

I respectfully request that the CFPB review whether American Express properly applied authorization standards and fair billing protections, and whether closing this dispute based on device access rather than explicit payment consent is consistent with consumer law and fair credit practices.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation