American Express Services Europe Limited · DRN-5951363

The complaint Mr B has complained about American Express Services Europe Limited (AESEL) declining a claim for money back. What happened The parties are familiar with the background details of this complaint – so, I’ll only briefly summarise them here. It reflects my role of resolving disputes quickly with minimum formality. On 11 June 2025, Mr B paid £0.99 using his AESEL credit card to an online provider, who I’ll refer to as D, to gain unlimited access to over 1,000 curated courses on a 30-day promotional trial basis. D sent Mr B an email to confirm the start of the trial period and an annual subscription had been set up. On 12 July 2025, Mr B’s card was charged an annual subscription fee of £277.43 by D. Mr B cancelled the annual subscription the following day and contacted D asking for a refund, but D declined the request. So, Mr B asked AESEL for help in getting his money back. AESEL raised a chargeback for the disputed amount. This was defended by D who said Mr B had been able to cancel the annual subscription at any point during the trial period, but he hadn’t done so. AESEL let Mr B know the chargeback hadn’t succeeded as under the scheme rules D had been entitled to take the money. So, Mr B asked AESEL to raise a Section 75 claim under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (S75 CCA). AESEL responded by saying they didn’t believe the available evidence supported there had been any misrepresentation or breach of contract by D. Unhappy with this response Mr B asked the Financial Ombudsman to consider the matter. Our Investigator didn’t uphold the complaint. In summary, they said they were satisfied AESEL had processed the chargeback in accordance with the scheme rules and they thought it was unlikely the scheme provider would have found in Mr B’s favour had they been asked to make a final arbitration ruling. The Investigator also didn’t think AESEL had acted unfairly when declining the S75 CCA claim saying it had been made clear to Mr B that if he didn’t cancel the annual subscription within the 30-day promotional period he would be charged the full amount. The Investigator also said that as the subscription was for digital content which was immediately available it meant the normal 14-day right to withdraw under consumer protection legislation (provided by the Consumer Rights Act (CRA)) didn’t apply on this occasion. Mr B didn’t agree with the Investigator’s findings. Mr B maintains there has been clear misrepresentation and a breach of contract as the purchase receipt D emailed to him said, “We’ll send you a reminder 7 days before your trial ends”. So, the complaint has come to me to make a final decision. What I’ve decided – and why I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and

-- 1 of 3 --

reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. Mr B has made several detailed points in his complaint including in the submissions he’s provided following the Investigator issuing their findings. But in my decision, I don’t intend to refer to everything or address every point made. I mean no discourtesy by this, instead I will focus on what I see as being the key outstanding points following the Investigator’s outcome, and the reasons for making my decision. Chargeback A ‘chargeback’ is a way for a debit or credit card provider (AESEL) to reclaim money from the merchant’s (D’s) bank where there are certain problems with the purchase of goods or services by a consumer (Mr B). It isn’t a legal right and there’s no guarantee the card provider will be able to recover the money this way. It’s a voluntary scheme and the process must follow the scheme rules – which are strict, and time limits apply. I’d only expect a business to raise a chargeback if it was possible to do so, and there was a reasonable chance of success. AESEL raised a chargeback under dispute code 4513 – credit not presented. D defended the claim saying Mr B had authorised the payment. It isn’t disputed that Mr B agreed to set up the annual subscription when he applied for and started the promotional 30-day trial period. It also isn’t disputed that Mr B didn’t cancel the subscription within the trial period. AESEL concluded this meant there was little to no prospect of the chargeback succeeding. Given the scheme rules, I think AESEL acted fairly when informing Mr B they weren’t going to proceed to the next stage in the chargeback process. S75 CCA In certain circumstances, S75 CCA allows Mr B to hold AESEL liable for a ‘like claim’ for breach of contract or misrepresentation in respect of an agreement with a supplier for goods or services which is funded by a credit card. In this instance, I think the requirements for Mr B raising a S75 CCA claim were met. However, based on what I’ve seen, I don’t believe there was any misrepresentation or breach of contract by D. I’ll explain why as I appreciate Mr B has strong feelings about what happened and will likely be disappointed with this outcome. D provided AESEL with a copy of their terms and conditions and the promotional material Mr B would have seen when signing up for the promotional trial period. I think it’s fair to say this clearly highlighted that after 30-days Mr B would automatically enrol for a further 12 months access to over 1,000 courses and he would be charged the annual subscription fee. I also think the literature made it clear Mr B was able to cancel the subscription at any point within the trial period. D says that as part of the trial process they send various automated email notifications to keep users informed throughout the trial period. The first email is a confirmation receipt on subscription activation. Mr B has provided a copy of this email. The relevant part of this email says: • You’re accessing these promotional prices for participating in the Free Trial Plus Subscription program. After your 30-day trial, your subscription will automatically continue and the annual plan will be charged (£269 billed as $362.28; final amount may vary by exchange rate). Cancel anytime during the 30-day trial period to avoid charges. We’ll send you a reminder 7 days before your trial ends. You authorize a recurring annual charge, which will be automatically applied to your payment method.

-- 2 of 3 --

You can cancel anytime from your profile, and the cancellation will take effect at the end of the billing period. Prices for future billing periods may change. Courses purchased with a free trial offer, Plus subscriptions, or Plus free trials are non- refundable. D says that on subscription activation they send a second email notification to confirm the subscription information, free trial conditions and a link to plan cancellation. This is followed by a third email after 15 days to remind users they still have 15 days of the free trial left and a fourth email after 21 days to remind the user they still have some days of the trial left. Mr B says he didn’t receive the 15 and 21-day notification emails. I’m unable to carry out a forensic analysis of Mr B’s computer and email history. AESEL would have faced the same evidential challenges. It is possible Mr B didn’t receive some of the emails D says the trial process would automatically have generated and sent to him. Even if this was the case, I understand why AESEL didn’t think this would, by itself, have comprised of a breach of contract. The trial period was relatively short (at 30 days), and it seems Mr B made some use of the provided service within this period. So, it seems unlikely Mr B would have forgotten he’d signed up for the annual subscription - which potentially could be the case after 12 months especially if the service hadn’t been used for some time. The promotional material also made it clear Mr B would be charged the annual subscription fee if it wasn’t cancelled within the trial period - which Mr B could have done at any time within those 30 days. In the circumstances, I think it was reasonable for AESEL to conclude there hadn’t been any misrepresentation or breach of contract in the service provided by D. D gave Mr B access to the promoted courses and said they would charge for this access after the 30-day trial period – which Mr B agreed to. I’ve not seen anything to show D charged Mr B an incorrect amount for the annual subscription fee. And I’m satisfied Mr B authorised D to take this payment after the end of the trial period. So, I think AESEL acted fairly when declining Mr B’s S75 CCA claim. Overall, I think AESEL processed the S75 CCA claim correctly and in a timely manner without any undue delays. My final decision My final decision is that I do not uphold the complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr B to accept or reject my decision before 25 May 2026. Carl Bibby Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --