<prompt> Human: TL:DR If you buy an item and the seller sends one that differs significantly from the description or is defective, you have the right to reject the item and require the seller to retrieve it at their expense - no matter what the sellers return policy says. You also have the right to a full refund. Rightful Rejection is part of most state law and based on the Uniform Commercial Code. It is also written into Visa Internationals rules. Dont believe Citibank representatives or anyone else who tells you otherwise.___Edit: Thanks for the gold, mysterious redditor.A few months ago I purchased an item from a online site and used my Citibank Costco card. Rather than the new item I purchased the company sent a used one that had obvious damage and signs of rough handling. I notified the company immediately and asked the seller to retrieve the item. The company refused to take the item back unless I paid both return shipping and a 20 restocking fee. This would have resulted in my having to pay almost 33 of the purchase price without insurance just to return a used item that should never been shipped in the first place. It would also have made the successful shipment and receipt of the item my responsibility. If it were lost or damaged in transit it would be my problem.When I went to chargeback the item the Citibank representative insisted that I was required to send the item back at my expense and was required to pay the restocking fee because I was subject to the companys return policy. She said I was required to return the item before disputing the charge. I initiated a chargeback anyway with a different rep. Sure enough Citibank found in the companys favor and reversed the chargeback. In their written response Citibank said that since I had not returned the item at my expense the chargeback was not valid.I spoke and chatted with no fewer than 9 different Citibank representatives during this dispute and every single one said that I had to send the item back at my expense and was subject to the sellers restocking fee. When I pointed out that both state law and Visa International rules say otherwise the representatives that responded said that Citibank was not subject to either and followed their own rules.While Citibank may not be required to enforce state law in this matter, they are required to abide by Visa Merchant Rules and cannot require the customer to absorb return costs or pay a restocking fee when the customer has refused an item for a valid reason. They must abide by Rule 53 of the Visa Merchant Code:Visa Merchant Code Rule 53 Not as Described or Defective Merchandise.Definition - The card issuer received a notice from the cardholder stating that the goods or services were: Merchandise or services did not match what was described on the transaction receipt or other documentation presented at the time of purchase Not the same as the merchants verbal description for a telephone transaction The merchandise was received damaged or defective The cardholder disputes the quality of the merchandise or services The merchandise was identified as counterfeit by the owner of the intellectual property or authorized representative, a customs agency, law enforcement agency, other governmental agency or neutral bona fide expert The cardholder claims that the terms of the sale were misrepresented by the merchant For this reason code, the cardholder must have made a valid attempt to resolve the dispute or return the merchandise. An example of a valid attempt to return may be to request that the merchant retrieve the goods at the merchants own expense.Mastercard and Amexs merchant agreements have similar provisions. I reinstituted the chargeback and insisted Citibank abide by applicable Visa International rules. After hours on the phone and extensive documentation of my claim they finally found in my favor. The entire process took months and was ridiculously difficult.Later I received a letter from Citibanks executive office in response to a complaint about the misinformation spread by Citibanks representatives and they respectfully denied that any misinformation was provided, despite the fact that they had done so in writing. It was that letter denying what the company had said repeatedly that led to this post. In my opinion when company representatives consistently provide false or misleading information it is done deliberately and with the blessing of corporate management. That seems to be the case with Citibank.Dont allow an unscrupulous credit card issuer like Citibank to deprive you of your rights or cost you money you arent required to pay.  <response>: Soundsike a lot of work, with little reward. Maybe some negative mainstream news media or a class action lawsuit would move the needle more? 