Consumer complaint received 2026-06-07 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: NY

Complaint narrative:
I made a purchase on XX/XX/year> using XXXX XXXX for a product advertised as 100 % authentic XXXX powder from XXXX. Authentic XXXX from XXXX has a welldocumented and consistent appearance, texture, and smell. It is dark brown to nearly black, coarse, gritty, resinous, and has a strong earthy, smoky scent. Authentic XXXX is never light, fluffy, perfumed, fibrous, or finely milled. There are no regional variations within XXXX that produce a pale or perfumed version. Anything that is light in XXXX, strawlike, or scented is not authentic XXXX and is typically a blend of unrelated herbs or fillers. The seller advertised the product as authentic XXXX powder from XXXX, but the product I received is not authentic XXXX. The texture, XXXX, and smell do not match the known characteristics of authentic XXXX, and the product appears to be a blend of other materials. This raises concerns about misrepresentation and potential undisclosed additives. The product remains unused ; once I saw it was not authentic, I closed the container and did not use any of it. I contacted the seller and explained that the product was not authentic. The seller insisted it was authentic but did not provide any sourcing information, documentation, or verification. They have an XXXX sheet on their site for this product, but XXXX sheets do not verify authenticity ; they only describe general safety handling. The SDS sheet does not address the discrepancies in texture, XXXX, or smell. The seller told me I could return the product only if I paid the return shipping cost. I ordered XXXX XXXX containers in bulk, and the combined weight makes the return shipping cost significant. I should not be responsible for paying high return shipping fees for a product that was misrepresented. What XXXX did : I opened a dispute with XXXX on XX/XX/year>. XXXX denied the case, stating the item was not damaged and was materially similar to the sellers description. This standard is inappropriate for an authenticity dispute. A counterfeit, fraudulent, or misrepresented product is inherently defective because it is not the product that was advertised or purchased. Authenticity is not subjective, and a product that is not authentic can not be considered undamaged. The product I received does not match the known characteristics of authentic XXXX from XXXX in texture, color, or smell, and therefore can not be considered materially similar or undamaged. I appealed the decision and provided additional information, but the appeal was denied as well. XXXX did not request further evidence, did not address the authenticity concerns, and did not appear to conduct a meaningful review. Their decision did not address the core issue of misrepresentation. Why I am filing this complaint : I do not feel that XXXX conducted a fair or thorough investigation. Their dispute process did not protect me from receiving a misrepresented product, and I am concerned that XXXX handling of authenticity disputes is inadequate and leaves consumers financially vulnerable. I attempted to resolve the issue through XXXX dispute system, but the process failed to address the core issue of authenticity and safety.

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 monetary relief