Our investigation

We examined whether the bank had fairly assessed Jerome’s chargeback request because it was required to act on his request if there were valid grounds. We considered the bank had focused on the non-refundable nature of the tickets and on the merchant’s terms, rather than on whether the amount charged differed from the amount shown in the app before payment. We also considered the bank failed to properly look into Jerome’s point that he bought the tickets through the merchant’s app, not its website, and that their screens presented different results.

We also learned the bank told Jerome that, if he pursued a chargeback, the tickets would be cancelled. A more accurate explanation would have been that cancellation was a risk, rather than a certain outcome. This incomplete information could reasonably have affected Jerome’s decision about whether to proceed with the chargeback. We also learned the bank asked Jerome for evidence of his contact with the merchant but did not clearly explain why that was important. Customers are generally expected to first try to resolve the issue directly with the merchant, and the bank may need evidence of those efforts to support a chargeback claim with Visa. Jerome had relied on a single interaction through the merchant’s website chatbot, but the bank did not properly explain why further communication with the merchant could assist with his chargeback. In response, the bank offered Jerome $800 to resolve the complaint.

Outcome

Jerome accepted the bank’s offer.