A recent federal court filing claims that a major credit card issuer failed to meet its legal obligations when handling a consumer’s dispute over nearly $20,000 in charges for online services that were allegedly misrepresented. The complaint asserts that the company did not conduct a reasonable or good-faith investigation into whether the services paid for were delivered as promised, raising questions about protections available to consumers facing similar disputes.
The complaint was filed by Garrett Stewart Sayre in the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia on March 19, 2026, naming Capital One, National Association as defendant. According to the filing, Capital One is the successor by merger to Discover Bank and is responsible for actions taken by Discover Bank during the period relevant to this dispute.
According to court documents, Sayre alleges that he incurred approximately $20,000 in charges through his credit card for services from an online merchant operating as UkrainianCharm.com with billing under ‘AmourBills.’ Sayre does not claim unauthorized use of his card but instead argues that Capital One failed its duty under the Fair Credit Billing Act (FCBA) and Regulation Z by refusing to reverse these charges after he provided evidence of material misrepresentation and non-delivery of promised services.
The complaint outlines detailed investigative findings submitted by Sayre. These include reports from Dr. Steve Sayre who conducted structured testing on UkrainianCharm.com. The findings suggest that communications on the platform were generated by artificial intelligence rather than real individuals, contrary to what was advertised. Test profiles created during this investigation received numerous messages designed to simulate emotional intimacy and encourage spending but showed signs of being automated rather than genuine human interaction.
Sayre further states that access attempts from Ukraine were blocked despite claims that users were based there and describes how contact information was only released after significant monetary thresholds had been met—yet still resulted in no real human interaction. Forensic analysis also indicated use of AI-generated images on user profiles. All these findings were documented in exhibits attached to the complaint and submitted previously to Capital One during his billing dispute process.
Despite receiving this documentation, Sayre alleges that Capital One relied solely on transactional records provided by the merchant without addressing whether genuine services had been delivered as agreed. He contends this approach falls short of what is required under federal law: “Federal law imposes an affirmative duty on the card issuer to conduct a reasonable and good-faith investigation and to correct billing errors as required by statute.” The complaint emphasizes that simply proving payment authorization does not resolve whether services have been delivered according to agreement or if material misrepresentation occurred.
The legal filing also highlights public representations made by UkrainianCharm.com regarding fraud prevention systems which, according to Sayre’s evidence, are contradicted by actual operational practices such as refusal of real-time verification and reliance on scripted communications. The platform’s complex corporate structure—spanning Cyprus and Nevada entities with distinct branding and billing names—is described as further complicating accountability for consumers seeking recourse.
Sayre requests several forms of relief from the court: declaratory judgment confirming violation of statutory duties under FCBA and Regulation Z; actual damages including reimbursement for disputed charges; statutory damages if applicable; costs; and any other relief deemed appropriate under federal law. He also notes incidents where unrelated customer information was disclosed during his dispute process but clarifies he is not asserting a separate cause of action based on those disclosures.
In response to merchant rebuttals submitted during his original dispute with Capital One—which focused solely on proof of payment—Sayre reiterates that authorization alone does not establish legitimacy or delivery of promised services: “Proof of payment alone does not resolve that inquiry.” He maintains that continued spending should be viewed as consistent with deceptive inducement rather than confirmation of service satisfaction.
The case is identified as Case No. 7:26-cv-00235-TTC-CKM in the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia. Garrett Stewart Sayre represents himself pro se in this matter.
Source: 726cv00235_Sayre_v_Capital_One_Complaint_Western_District_Virginia.pdf
