Consumer complaint received 2026-06-15 00:00:00
Product: Credit card — Store credit card
Issue: Advertising and marketing, including promotional offers — Confusing or misleading advertising about the credit card
Company: WELLS FARGO & COMPANY
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
I have a Wells Fargo Home XXXX credit card ( account ending XXXX ) with a No Interest if Paid in Full promotion that expired on XX/XX/year>. Because a balance remained, Wells Fargo charged me {$7800.00} in retroactive deferred interest at 28.99 percent. This complaint is not about how the interest was calculated. It is about how Wells Fargo discloses the deadline. I believe the disclosure design is a dark pattern under CFPB Circular XXXX and an unfair practice under 12 USC 5531 . I manage this account through the Wells Fargo mobile app. The app is where I and most customers actually transact. The app prominently displays the minimum payment due in real time. It does not display the deferred interest deadline or the consequence of missing it, which is the most financially significant information for a customer in this kind of promotion. I am attaching two screenshots taken XX/XX/year> that show this within Wells Fargo 's own interfaces. The desktop browser version ( Screenshot A ) includes a notice directing customers to find the Special Terms on their billing statement. The mobile app version ( Screenshot B ), the higher engagement surface, omits even that pointer. The app 's most prominent figure reads Minimum payment due : {$0.00}, which signals no urgency, while a five figure deferred interest liability builds toward a deadline that the app never mentions. Wells Fargo can surface this information, and clearly does so on the desktop browser. It chose not to surface it on the mobile app. The same bank places loan offers, balance transfer offers, and pre-approval notices prominently and in real time on the app. It surfaces information it profits from and routes information that reduces its revenue to channels its own analytics show are least likely to reach the customer. Wells Fargo 's own response to me ( letter dated XX/XX/year>, attached ) confirms the deadline was sent through the statement PDF, the card carrier, the account agreement, automated calls from an unknown number, and emails. The bank knows statement open rates are low, it knows automated calls from unknown numbers go unanswered, and it knows that promotional emails are filtered. That is the structure of an information asymmetry dark pattern. What I have done to resolve it : I disputed the charge directly and it was denied. I filed a prior CFPB complaint about the charge ( case XXXX ), which closed. I escalated to the Wells Fargo XXXX Complaints Management Office, which denied my request on XX/XX/year> and again on XX/XX/year> ( both letters attached ). Wells Fargo 's XX/XX/XXXX letter addressed my concern about the app with an apology and a statement that my feedback was shared with management. It did not engage the disclosure design issue.

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