American Express Services Europe Limited · DRN-5924135

The complaint Mr D has complained that American Express Services Europe Limited “AmEx” declined his claim for money back in relation to a MacBook he purchased using his AmEx credit card. What happened All parties are familiar with the facts of the case, so I’ll only set out a summary. On 27 March 2025, Mr D bought a MacBook from a supplier I’ll refer to as A. He paid £7.40 on his AmEx credit card and used a prepaid gift card to pay the remaining amount. The total cost of the device was £1,434. In June 2025, Mr D contacted AmEx to make a claim under section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (section 75). Mr D felt the MacBook had been misrepresented to him and that there had been a breach of contract. He said he was induced into purchasing it due to the manufacturers extensive marketing of artificial intelligence as a core feature of the device. He pointed out that A’s website had the description that the device was built for the manufacturers intelligence features. AmEx didn’t uphold his complaint. It said Mr D hadn’t demonstrated that A had misrepresented the device or breached the contract. Unhappy, Mr D referred his complaint to our service reiterating his earlier points. He provided links to adverts related to the manufacturers marketing material, as well as evidence of how the product was advertised on A’s website. He also included information related to recommendations made by an advertising agency in a country outside of the UK and details of court claims consumers had made directly against the manufacturer. Mr D’s complaint was considered by one of our investigators. They also agreed that there was insufficient evidence to show that there had been a breach of contract or misrepresentation. He said on A’s websites there were multiple disclaimers explaining the AI features were in beta – which means it wasn’t a finished product and also that the features were subject to change. Some of the features were released in 2024 with more to follow in 2026. They felt that Mr D had been provided with a working MacBook and the recommendations made by an advertising agency abroad was in relation to adverts that had described certain features as “available now” which wasn’t relevant to the descriptions and adverts made in the UK. Mr D disagreed and reiterated his earlier points including: • He was induced into the contract due to the manufacturers’ extensive marketing and branding that the device purchased was built for the manufacturers Artificial intelligence – and therefore they were not as described. • He felt there was a promise to deliver within the next year – but haven’t been delivered in line with the promised deadline. • The absence of advertised, differentiating features constitutes a breach of contract regardless of the device’s ability to operate other basic functions. • The advertising agency abroad made a finding that the manufacturers’ marketing was misleading and therefore Mr D has proved there has been a misrepresentation

-- 1 of 3 --

that AmEx was liable for. • Recently, Mr D added that the manufacturer has changed the basis on which it would build one of its language features. He says this was central to his purchasing decision. As the complaint couldn’t be resolved, the complaint has been passed to me to make a decision. What I’ve decided – and why I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. Initially, I’d like to clarify that I will only be dealing with the parts of this complaint that I think are key, as I’m required to decide matters quickly and informally, but I want to assure Mr D that have considered all his concerns carefully in this decision. Our rules allow us to do this. Section 75 gives the account holder (the “debtor”) the right to make a like claim against their credit card provider for a breach of contract or misrepresentation by a supplier of goods or services. As part of this decision, I need to consider whether, based on the available evidence, it was fair and reasonable for AmEx to respond to his claim in the way that it did, and if not, if there’s grounds for me to uphold Mr D’s complaint and order a remedy. There are certain conditions that need to be met for section 75 to apply such as financial limits. Based on what I’ve seen, it looks like those conditions have been met and AmEx hasn’t in any event disputed this. In order to uphold Mr D’s section 75 claim on the basis that there has been a breach of contract, Mr D would need to evidence that A breached a term of the contract (either express or implied) – and that caused him to suffer loss. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA) implies terms into the contract that the goods must be of satisfactory quality, aspects of which include goods being durable and free from minor defects. The CRA also sets out what remedies are available to consumers if statutory rights under a goods or services contract are not met. Mr D can also show he has been misled about the contract in some way, that A made a false statement of fact or law that he relied on and this caused him to suffer loss. As Mr D is making the claim, the onus is on him to provide evidence that demonstrates he has a valid claim for breach of contract and/or misrepresentation. Mr D has provided evidence including links to and screenshots of the manufacturers marketing campaign (not A specifically), and some of it is in relation to adverts/recommendations made abroad. But as explained by our investigator, the disclaimer on A’s website clearly indicated that the features Mr D has complained about were incomplete at the time he purchased the device, and Mr D was explicitly told it was subject to change. Additionally, the manufacturer told Mr D that more features would become available in future updates. And I haven’t seen anything that suggests there was a promise/guarantee to deliver said features by a specific date. The mass claims brought against the manufacturer directly haven’t been decided upon and the findings of the advertising agency abroad related specifically to the manufacturer’s claim that certain features were available now, which isn’t present in the current case. Additionally, as highlighted by our investigator, for a misrepresentation claim, Mr D would need to show that the statements made were false at the time that they were made, rather than circumstances changing as time went on. And I can see the manufacturer told Mr D that due to unforeseen developmental circumstances further features would be delivered in 2026

-- 2 of 3 --

updates. I would add that other than Mr D’s testimony that he relied on these campaigns and adverts, he hasn’t provided any evidence such as communications with A discussing these matters or promises made to him prior to purchasing the device which would demonstrate that he’d relied on them. Based on the evidence provided to AmEx, I don’t think it was unreasonable for it to conclude that it didn’t need to offer a remedy in this instance. As explained by our investigator, in relation to Mr D’s potential claim under the chargeback scheme, as AmEx could only claim the amounts paid on the card through the chargeback process, which was nominal, I think it was reasonable for it to focus instead on Mr D’s section 75 claim. Mr D also hasn’t asked for any further remedies to be offered in relation to AmEx’s procedural failings so I find no grounds to direct AmEx to do anything further in this case. I should point out that Mr D doesn’t have to accept this decision. He may be able to pursue the matter by more formal means such as through the courts. This service isn’t able to provide Mr D with legal advice so if he decides to pursue either AmEx, A, or the manufacturer separately, he will need to seek independent legal advice. My final decision For the reasons I’ve explained, I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr D to accept or reject my decision before 16 April 2026. Asma Begum Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --