Consumer complaint received 2026-06-14 00:00:00
Product: Credit card — General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Problem with a purchase shown on your statement — Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement
Company: SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL
State: GA

Complaint narrative:
This complaint concerns a systematic failure by Synchrony Bank to perform a reasonable billing dispute investigation under the Fair Credit Billing Act ( 12 CFR 1026.13 ). The bank has repeatedly relied on inaccurate corporate summaries provided by the merchant, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, while actively ignoring the merchant 's own signed, internal medical records and clinical confessions confirming total service failure. The Prepayment vs. Actual Delivery Timeline : The principal amount under dispute is {$1500.00}. Synchrony Bank 's automated dispute evaluation is fundamentally flawed because it anchors entirely to a mandatory prepayment date of XX/XX/XXXX, treating the medical transaction like an immediate retail purchase. On that date, no medical device existed ; the funds were drawn strictly as an upfront deposit for a future permanent XXXXXXXX XXXX ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX ). The physical merchandisethe permanent XXXXwas not actually delivered and permanently installed until XX/XX/XXXX. As documented in my comprehensive timeline of events, a severe quality and structural defect was identified immediately at the time of installation on XX/XX/XXXX, while my mouth was still numb for hours. The provider ignored my immediate complaints regarding the fit and bite, refusing to correct the placement from Day One. Under federal consumer banking standards, a consumer can not be deemed to have accepted defective merchandise or services prior to physical delivery. This quality defect was baked into the initial installation and was never resolved. The Merchant 's Internal Admissions of Failure : Over the course of the next ten months, I engaged in exhaustive, good-faith efforts to allow the provider to adjust the work. Despite telling the creditor that the services were sound, the merchant 's own internal clinical files prove total failure : XX/XX/XXXX : The merchant generated an internal " Provider Production Adjustment/Transfer '' form explicitly admitting : " Patient 's XXXX had to be adjusted twice after the second time XXXX came off it needs to be redone. '' This proves the merchant internally classified the service as a complete failure months prior to the bank 's denial decisions. XX/XX/XXXX : An independent second opinion from an outside dental group confirmed via diagnostic XXXX that the XXXX possessed a severe open margin defect. XX/XX/XXXX : When confronted with the independenXXXX XXXX proof, the treating dentist at XXXX XXXX explicitly noted in my clinical chart that a " distal gap '' was present and documented that " the XXXX will be repeated. '' Rather than honoring this redo, the merchant immediately and abruptly terminated my XXXX XXXX in bad faith. Subsequent Breach of Contract & Impossibility of Performance : A formal billing dispute was logged on XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, this specific XXXX XXXX facility permanently closed its doors and abandoned the location. Consequently, the merchant is in total breach of contract and can not physically perform the " redo '' or " repetition '' that their own clinical notes admit is mandatory. Synchrony Bank 's Systemic Failures : I have provided Synchrony Bank with the complete medical fileincluding the XX/XX/XXXX redo form, the XX/XX/XXXX distal gap note, and the permanent closure notice. Despite having these concrete, written merchant admissions in their possession, Synchrony Bank 's claims department issued a denial letter on XX/XX/XXXX, utilizing a boilerplate script claiming : " The documentation we received indicates that there was no quality concern at the time you received the merchandise or service. '' This finding is factually impossible and stands in direct contradiction to the delivery date facts and the merchant 's signed medical confessions. Furthermore, Synchrony 's current monthly billing statement ( closing date XX/XX/XXXX ) acknowledges the severity of the dispute by automatically freezing a balance of {$2100.00} ( accounting for principal plus deferred promotional interest ) and adjusting the minimum payment due to {$0.00}, explicitly noting " PAYMENT OF AMOUNT IN DISPUTE NOT REQUIRED. '' Yet, the bank 's dispute correspondence indicates the claim is closed against me.

Company public response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation