Consumer complaint received 2026-05-27 00:00:00
Product: Credit card — General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Advertising and marketing, including promotional offers — Confusing or misleading advertising about the credit card
Company: JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.
State: NY

Complaint narrative:
PRODUCT : Credit card ISSUE : Problem during the application process - confusing or misleading advertising/marketing COMPANY : JPMorgan Chase Bank , N.A . ACCOUNT : Chase Ink Business Preferred, ending in XXXX ACCOUNT HOLDER : XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX, President ) -- - WHAT HAPPENED : In fall XXXX, my business partner XXXX XXXX and I were evaluating introductory financing options for our respective businesses, XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX. To manage initial cash flow responsibly, we conducted an internal analysis of business credit cards offering a 0 % introductory APR on purchases. On or around XX/XX/XXXX, we both applied for Chase XXXX XXXX cards based on this research. My partner applied for and was approved for the Chase XXXX XXXX XXXX, which carries a 0 % introductory APR on purchases for 12 months. I intended to apply for the exact same product. I was approved for a {$21000.00} credit line, which I fully believed was the Chase XXXX XXXX XXXX. I was instead issued the Chase XXXX XXXX Preferred ( account ending XXXX ), which carries no 0 % introductory APR and charges a variable APR of approximately 21.24 % -26.24 % from day one, plus a {$95.00} annual fee. I did not knowingly apply for this product and had no business case for doing so, as my explicit goal was to secure an introductory 0 % APR. The reason for this confusion is clear : the Chase XXXX XXXX XXXX and Chase XXXX XXXX XXXX are presented with nearly identical visual designs. Both cards are dark blue. Both use the same " XXXX XXXX '' branding and typography. Both have the same chip placement and Chase logo treatment. The only visual distinction during the online application process is a single word ( " Preferred '' vs. " Unlimited '' ) and a barely perceptible difference in shade of blue. These products appear on the same Chase business credit card landing page, side by side. Because I believed I had a 0 % introductory APR card, I used it to fund standard business expenses and set the account to autopay the minimum, consistent with standard 0 % introductory cash flow management. At no point during the months of use did any Chase communication, statement design, or account notification make it obvious that I was being charged interest. The interest accrued silently in the background. On XX/XX/XXXX, my Chase dashboard showed a balance of {$15000.00} on a {$21000.00} limit. The account continued accruing interest. On approximately XX/XX/XXXX, charges on the card began declining. On XX/XX/XXXX, I called Chase and was informed the card was over its {$21000.00} limit by {$12.00} - the overlimit amount itself was caused by accrued interest charges pushing the balance past the credit line. During this call, I learned for the first time that this card had never carried a 0 % introductory APR. A Chase representative acknowledged that Chase offers other business cards that do carry 0 % introductory APR, confirming that the product line includes the card I intended to apply for. Despite this acknowledgment, Chase offered no remedy. FINANCIAL HARM : I have been paying approximately {$500.00} or more per month in interest charges since the account was opened, totaling an estimated $ XXXX $ XXXX in interest over the life of the account. This interest is the sole reason the card reached and exceeded its credit limit. Had I received the Chase XXXX XXXX XXXX I intended to apply for, zero interest would have accrued during the 12-month introductory period, and I would have paid the balance in full before any interest began. WHY THIS IS DECEPTIVE : 1. PRODUCT PRESENTATION : Chase markets the XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX with virtually identical visual branding, card design, and page layout. 2. DOCUMENTED INTENT : I possess an internal business financial planning document, authored with my business partner, that specifically identifies the Chase XXXX XXXX XXXX as a target card for its 0 % introductory APR. 3. CORROBORATING EVIDENCE : My business partner XXXX XXXX applied for the Chase XXXX XXXX XXXX during the same working session and was approved for it. We were evaluating the same product. He received the correct card. I did not. 4. NO COUNTEROFFER NOTICE : If Chase determined I did not qualify for the XXXX XXXX XXXX and instead approved me for the XXXX XXXX XXXX, I was never provided a counteroffer notice as required under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act ( ECOA ). I was never informed I was being issued a different product than what I applied for. 5. FAILURE TO MAKE TERMS CONSPICUOUS : The Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ) and Regulation Z require that APR terms be clearly and conspicuously disclosed. The near-identical presentation of products with drastically different APR structures within the same product family fails this standard.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation