Consumer complaint received 2026-01-07 00:00:00
Product: Credit card — General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Other features, terms, or problems — Other problem
Company: SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL
State: NY

Complaint narrative:
Issue : Systemic Failure to Conduct Individualized Investigations, Misrepresentation of Complaints, and Obstruction of a Valid Chargeback ( CareCredit acct # XXXX ). 

Purpose of This Escalation : This submission is a procedural and regulatory escalation, not a duplicate complaint. 

It is prompted by the respondents repeated failure to engage in good faith with multiple, distinct CFPB complaints filed on different dates, each addressing separate violations, which the respondent improperly collapsed into a single recycled response packet from Synchrony Bank. 

This pattern mirrors how the respondent mishandled the underlying billing dispute and chargeback itself : by evading evidence, ignoring timelines, and substituting conclusory denials for investigation.

II. Multiple Distinct Complaints Were Filed Not Duplicates I filed separate CFPB complaints as new violations occurred. Each complaint had a different factual basis, different date of harm, and different regulatory concern. These include, but are not limited to : XX/XX/XXXX Failure to properly investigate and engage with evidence related to denied hospital services and billing integrity. 

XX/XX/XXXX Discovery that my account had been closed during an active dispute, without advance notice, and without any legitimate basis communicated to me. 

XX/XX/XXXX Complaint regarding the concealment of a critical hospital response letter that had been relied upon to deny my dispute but was never disclosed to me during the dispute process available to them since XXXX of 2024. 

XX/XX/XXXX Complaint regarding post-closure misconduct, including tradeline disappearance, contradictory explanations, and retroactive narrative changes. 

Each complaint arose from new conduct. None were restatements of earlier grievances. 

XXXX. Respondents Improper One-Packet Response Strategy Despite the distinct nature of these complaints, the respondent answered all of them with : The same response letter ( XXXX ) The same attachments The same generalized denials No acknowledgment of new facts, dates, or allegations This response strategy demonstrates : No individualized review No complaint-specific investigation No engagement with evidence submitted No attempt to address the actual regulatory violations raised This is not a clerical oversight. It is a systemic practice that renders the CFPB complaint process meaningless in this case. 

IV. This Procedural Failure Mirrors the Mishandling of the Underlying Dispute The respondents CFPB conduct is consistent with how it handled the original chargeback : Evidence was ignored or requested repeatedly despite already being on file Timelines were compressed unrealistically ( e.g., a reinvestigation reopened on XX/XX/XXXX and closed again by XX/XX/XXXX, without substantive engagement ) Decisions were made without addressing the consumers submissions Conclusions were asserted without explanation A legitimate investigation, whether of a billing dispute or a CFPB complaint, requires actual engagement with the records. That did not occur at any stage. 

V. Concealment of Critical Evidence Undermined the Dispute From the Start A hospital response letter, relied upon to deny my dispute, was concealed from me for months and only disclosed after regulatory pressure and FOIA obligations forced its release nearly a year later. 

Because this letter was withheld : I was denied the opportunity to rebut false hospital assertions in real time I could not submit counter-evidence during the active dispute The denial was procedurally tainted from inception The respondent can not claim a fair or complete investigation when it relied on evidence that was never shared with the consumer. 

VI. Retaliatory Account Closure During an Active Dispute On XX/XX/XXXX, I discovered ; not through notice, but through being locked out of online access, that my account had been closed during an ongoing dispute. 

I was given contradictory explanations, including : That the account was closed because I requested a dispute ( which had been ongoing since the prior year ) That the account was closed due to being over the limit, despite the over-limit status being caused by fees and charges added during active investigations No advance notice was provided. No written justification was sent contemporaneously. 

XXXX. Fabricated Fraud / New Account Narrative Explicitly Disclaimed I did not : File a fraud complaint at any time Request a fraud investigation Request a new account Consent to a new account number Receive a new card Receive mailed notice of any new account Any account allegedly created after the closure of my original account was created without my consent and without my initiation. 

I explicitly reject and disclaim : Any assertion that I initiated a fraud claim Any request that I submit sworn affidavits or contact identity theft services for a claim I never made This appears to be an attempt to : Erase the history of the original dispute Sever continuity with the account I actually held and its link to regulatory complaints. 

Undermine the credibility of my longstanding billing complaint VIII. The Underlying Chargeback Was Always Valid The original dispute concerned service failures and billing integrity, not fraud. 

Denied or improperly rendered services were billed, disputed promptly, and supported with documentation. This should have been a straightforward chargeback. 

Instead, the respondent : Avoided addressing the merits Relied on concealed third-party assertions Escalated fees during investigations Closed the account mid-dispute Introduced a false fraud narrative only after regulatory complaints were filed This sequence demonstrates evasion, not investigation.

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