A Marriott Bonvoy Titanium elite says he is out more than $5,000 after booking a prepaid “Sonder by Marriott” stay on Marriott.com—Sonder took the money, went bankrupt, and Marriott’s answer was 40,000 points.
Worse, his bank’s portal auto-rejected a dispute as “too old” because the charge is over 120 days old, even though the trip hasn’t happened yet.
A Marriott Bonvoy Titanium elite has cancelled $20,000 worth of future stays and won’t touch Marriott again in the future after being stuck with a prepaid Sonder stay. Sonder went bankrupt, and Marriott won’t help customers get their money back.
- Marriott knew Sonder was in trouble, and didn’t tell guests, continuing to book rooms.
- Sonder charged prepaid stays, went bankrupt, and guests are now unsecured creditors. They don’t have their stay, they’re out the cash.
- And Marriott throws up their hands – sure you booked on our website, you booked a ‘Sonder by Marriott’ with our name on it, and thought you were buying a stay with us, from us but we aren’t responsible.
As I wrote to expect, this guest was offered 40,000 Marriott Bonvoy points for their trouble – losing ‘$5,000+’ on a prepaid booking for a Sonder stay.
⚠️ WARNING to all @MarriottBonvoy Elites: I lost +$5k on a “fully refundable” booking made directly on Marriott․com for Sonder.
The “Partnership” trap: Marriott let me book, took the reservation, but now claims “Sonder is the merchant of record” and refuses to refund me.
1/5…
— Semih Decan (@SemihDecan) December 20, 2025
I am a Titanium Elite / Lifetime Platinum member. I’ve spent years loyal to this brand.
Today, the @Marriott CEO’s office called me. They admitted the issue but refused the refund. Their offer? 40,000 points(worth ~$300) as “compensation” for a $4,700 theft.
It was insulting. I…
— Semih Decan (@SemihDecan) December 20, 2025
My question, naturally, was – sure, Marriott’s reputation is the one on the line and Marriott failed to protect guests – but shouldn’t they be pursuing a credit card chargeback? Here they’re just getting bad customer service from their bank.
My bank is blocking the dispute because of a ‘120-day limit’ on transactions. Since I booked in June for a 2026 stay, their system auto-rejects it as ‘too old.’
It’s a perfect trap: Marriott says ‘call the bank,’ and the bank says ‘too late.'” Furthermore, someone from @Marriott…
— Semih Decan (@SemihDecan) December 20, 2025
For future-dated travel bookings, the relevant “clock” on disputes is generally tied to the expected service date, rather than the original charge date. A bank portal that blocks disputes after 120 days from the transaction is incorrect for this situation.
Visa’s rules for Dispute Condition 13.1 (Merchandise/Services Not Received) say the dispute must be processed no later than either:
- 120 calendar days from the Transaction Processing Date, or
- 120 calendar days from the last date the cardholder expected to receive the merchandise or services.
In cases of insolvency, Visa says it’s 120 days from the expected services, with a 540-day limit from the transaction processing date.
Mastercard’s Chargeback Guide says:
- For travel service non-delivery, the time frame is tied to the latest expected service date, and says “the issuer does not have to wait for the latest expected service date,” a chargeback may be processed immediately upon learning the travel services won’t be provided.
- For “Goods or Services Not Provided,” Mastercard also says if the issuer learns the merchant won’t provide the goods or services (e.g. merchant is no longer in business), they don’t need to wait the normal waiting period for filing.
In this case I wouldn’t submit the chargeback online. I’d call, and make clear “This is services not provided for future-dated travel.” Provide the stay dates, evidence of Sonder shutting down, and ask them to manually open a chargeback using the expected service date as the basis for timeliness. Then if the card issuer still won’t accept the chargeback, submit it in writing to their billing disputes address.
I’d say something like,
I need to open a chargeback for services not provided. This is a future trip with expected service dates [DATE–DATE]. Sonder has ceased operations and will not honor the stay.
Your online form blocks disputes older than 120 days, but for this dispute type the time window is based on the expected service date. Please open this manually as services not received and record the expected service date.
This dispute should be a layup everywhere except the 10th Circuit where payment networks can reject disputes when card charges have already been paid off.