Consumer complaint received 2026-03-02 00:00:00
Product: Credit card — General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Getting a credit card — Delay in processing application
Company: Bread Financial Holdings, Inc.
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
This correspondence supplements my XX/XX/year> written complaint regarding the handling of my Saks Fifth Avenue credit application and the subsequent fraud designation applied to my account. A week after the initial complaint, I received a welcome email from Saks Fifth Avenue on XX/XX/year>. I called account protection to confirm the validity of the email and was informed that my application had now been approved, but only for the store card. I informed the representative that I had applied for the XXXX version, and it indicated that I had been prequalified. Had I been aware that I would be issued the store card, I would not have applied. I believe that my account was downgraded as an additional form of punishment. On Sunday, XX/XX/year> ; I appeared in person at Saks Fifth Avenue in XXXX XXXX to resolve the matter directly. While I was there, I spoke with XXXX, the department manager, who then called Comenity Bank for me, but the account protection team didn't offer any help. My physical California driver license was examined by store management and later scanned by a sales associate at the point-of-sale terminal. The system successfully located my Saks account and tried to process a transaction, which was then declined. The receipt generated during that visit confirms that identification was presented and that the transaction was declined. I called again to account protection and was told that the verification team didnt upload my documents to the department, but I asked her, well, how was I approved then? She told me that my account will remain blocked until it can be reviewed again. These events establish objective facts. My government issued identification was physically inspected in person. That same identification was electronically scanned and accepted by the store system. Saks Fifth Avenue system then successfully matched my ID to an existing Saks account credit card profile. Despite this successful identity recognition, the account remains blocked under a Suspected Fraud determination. Your XX/XX/year> adverse action letter cites Suspected Fraud as the basis for denial. That statement contains no factual explanation. A fraud designation implies misrepresentation or identity irregularity and must be grounded in a specific, articulable discrepancy. No such discrepancy has been identified to me. My California driver license, my XXXX XXXX bank statement, and my existing Bread Financial savings account reflect consistent identifying information. If a material inconsistency exists, it should be clearly stated in writing. I therefore demand a written response identifying the exact factual basis for the Suspected Fraud determination, specifying the document, data mismatch, or internal fraud indicator relied upon, confirming whether all identification materials I submitted were reviewed prior and explaining how the continued fraud designation complies with the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and applicable adverse action notice requirements. If no concrete discrepancy can be identified, the continued maintenance of a fraud designation after in person verification and successful system recognition is arbitrary and discriminatory. The Equal Credit Opportunity Act [ ECOA ], 15 U.S.C. 1691 et seq. prohibits creditors from discriminating against credit applicants on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age, or because an applicant has in good faith exercised any right under the Consumer Credit Protection Act.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation