Consumer complaint received 2025-11-04 00:00:00
Product: Credit card — General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Fees or interest — Problem with fees
Company: SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL
State: MO

Complaint narrative:
Overview of the Issue This is a new and expanded complaint concerning Synchrony XXXX deceptive and misleading administration of a 0 % APR for 24 months personal loan, which I obtained in XX/XX/XXXX, and the banks subsequent failure to address my core concerns in CFPB case # XXXX. 

The original complaint explained that Synchronys minimum payment display, online interface, and verbal customer support guidance misled me into believing that I was paying my promotional loan correctly and on pace to satisfy the full payoff conditions within the XXXX period. Despite paying faithfully every month, Synchrony ultimately imposed retroactive interest on the entire {$25000.00} loan, nearly doubling my balance and erasing two years of payments. 

Synchronys previous CFPB response completely ignored the substantive issues raised. It cited fine-print contract language instead of addressing the deceptive structure and administration of its payment system. I am refiling to request that the CFPB conduct a formal reinvestigation and systemic review of Synchronys deferred-interest loan practices. 

Detailed Chronology of Events 1. Loan Origination XX/XX/XXXX In XX/XX/XXXX, I opened a personal loan with Synchrony XXXX for {$25000.00}. The loan was heavily advertised and represented as a 0 % APR for 24 months promotional offer. I accepted this offer with the clear understanding that if I made my monthly payments as directed, I would pay off the balance without incurring interest. 

When setting up the loan by phone with a Synchrony representative in XX/XX/XXXX, I specifically asked about the payment requirements and was advised that the monthly minimum payment displayed on the account portal would keep me compliant with the promotional terms. There was no mention or warning that the minimum payment would be insufficient to retire the loan by the end of the XXXX period. 

2. Payment History XXXX to XXXX Throughout the entire promotional period, I made consistent monthly payments of approximately {$630.00}, following Synchronys own online prompts and billing statements which clearly labeled this as the Minimum Payment Due. 
Each month, I logged into my Synchrony account and paid the exact minimum amount displayed. 

At no point during these two years did Synchrony issue any communication, warning, or disclosure suggesting that I was not on pace to satisfy the full balance within the 0 % promotional period. 

In late XXXX, I proactively called Synchrony customer service again to confirm that I was paying correctly. The representative verified that my account was in good standing, my payments were appropriate, and I was on track. 

This communication reinforced my good-faith belief that I was fulfilling all promotional requirements. 

3. Expiration of the Promotional Period Late XXXX At the end of the XXXX term, I was shocked to discover that, despite my consistent XXXX XXXX monthly payments, I still owed approximately {$10000.00} in remaining principal. Immediately thereafter, Synchrony applied two years of retroactive interest on the entire {$25000.00} principal, resulting in a balance that now exceeds {$23000.00}. 

This outcome effectively erased all progress made over two years of diligent payments. It transformed what had been marketed as an interest-free offer into a debt trap with retroactive interest that would not have accrued had Synchrony clearly disclosed the real payment requirements or honored its representatives verbal guidance. 

Synchronys Inadequate Response to CFPB Case # XXXX In response to my original CFPB complaint, Synchrony provided a generic and dismissive reply. The bank simply restated contract language that interest would apply if the balance was not paid in full by the end of the promotional period. 

This response is wholly non-responsive to the substance of my complaint. Synchrony failed to address any of the following key points : The Misleading Minimum Payment Feature Synchronys payment interface and billing statements explicitly present a Minimum Payment Due amount. The logical interpretation of that termparticularly for a 0 % promotional offeris that paying the minimum keeps the loan in good standing under the promotional terms. However, Synchronys own amortization design ensures that these minimum payments are mathematically insufficient to satisfy the balance before the expiration of the 0 % term. 

Verbal Misrepresentation by Synchrony Staff In XX/XX/XXXX, I called Synchrony when setting up the account and again later in the term to confirm that I was paying correctly. Both times I was assured that my payment schedule was appropriate. Synchronys response ignored this entirely, producing no call logs, transcripts, or verification of what its representatives told me. 

Lack of Clear Disclosures The fine print of the loan may technically mention deferred interest, but nowhere in Synchronys online portal, account statements, or monthly notices does it warn : Making only the minimum payment will NOT pay off your loan within the promotional period. 
This omission makes the loan deceptive in practice, even if technically compliant on paper. 

Failure to Provide Requested Evidence Synchrony failed to produce the disclosures it claims were provided, nor did it show how the minimum payment figure was calculated or why it is prominently displayed in a way that misleads borrowers. 

By ignoring all of these issues, Synchronys response violates the spirit of CFPB Complaint Process XXXX, requiring that regulated institutions respond substantively and in good faith. 

Legal and Regulatory Framework This case raises issues under multiple federal consumer protection laws and regulations : 1. Truth in Lending Act ( TILA, 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq. ) TILA mandates that all terms of a credit arrangement be clearly and conspicuously disclosed. Synchronys use of a minimum payment that could never satisfy the promotional payoff requirement, without explicit disclosure to that effect, violates this requirement.

2. Regulation Z ( 12 CFR 1026 ) Regulation Z requires that any promotional or deferred-interest offer must clearly describe : The conditions required to retain the promotional rate ; The consequences of failing to meet those conditions ; and Any minimum payment structure that might cause loss of the promotion.

Synchronys interface, billing statements, and representative guidance did not provide this information clearly, conspicuously, or consistently. 

3. Dodd-Frank Act 1031 UDAAP Provisions The Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts or Practices ( UDAAP ) provisions prohibit lenders from engaging in conduct that misleads or is likely to mislead consumers. A reasonable consumer, seeing minimum payment due and receiving verbal assurance of compliance, would assume they were satisfying the requirements of a 0 % APR offer. Synchronys structure is therefore deceptive and unfair under federal law. 

4. State UDAP Laws ( e.g., [ Your State ] Consumer Protection Act ) Most states, including [ Your State ], have similar prohibitions against deceptive trade practices. Synchronys actionsespecially the misrepresentation of a promotional offer through its interface and verbal guidancelikely violate state consumer-protection statutes as well.

Why Synchronys Practice Is Systemically Harmful I am not the only consumer affected by this design. Public CFPB complaint records, consumer-advocacy websites, and financial forums contain dozens of similar complaints describing identical experiences : Borrowers take out a Synchrony 0 % loan or credit promotion. 

They pay the displayed minimum payment faithfully. 

At the end of the promotional period, they are informed that the balance was not fully paid and that deferred interest has now been applied retroactively. 

This pattern strongly suggests a systemic, profit-driven model based on deferred interest accrual. The payment interface and customer communications are structured to maximize the likelihood that consumers will inadvertently trigger the retroactive interest clause, allowing Synchrony to collect thousands of dollars in back-interest after two years of interest-free marketing claims. 

Such practices undermine the intent of consumer credit transparency laws and exploit ordinary consumers good-faith reliance on lender representations. 

Harm and Damages Suffered Over the XXXX period, I paid roughly {$630.00} per month, totaling approximately $ XXXX. 

At the end of the term, I was hit with nearly {$8000.00} {$10000.00} in retroactive interest, which ballooned my outstanding balance to over XXXX XXXX the full original loan amount. 

This outcome has significantly damaged my personal finances, caused unnecessary emotional stress, and harmed my credit standing. 

I acted in absolute good faith, consistently paying what Synchrony displayed as the correct amount and even verifying it by phone. The resulting financial harm stems directly from Synchronys misleading practices. 

Broader Public Interest Synchrony Bank is one of the largest private-label and promotional credit providers in the U.S., servicing millions of consumers. If the CFPB permits Synchrony to continue structuring its 0 % APR and deferred-interest programs in this way, the harm will extend far beyond this single case. 

The pattern described here represents a structural deception built into Synchronys product designa deliberate reliance on misleading payment structures that virtually guarantee consumer default on promotional conditions. 

By investigating and addressing this practice, the CFPB has an opportunity to protect a significant portion of American borrowers who are similarly being misled. 

Conclusion Synchrony Banks conduct in this matter was deceptive, unfair, and harmful. Its failure to meaningfully respond to CFPB complaint # XXXX underscores its unwillingness to engage in good-faith dispute resolution. 

The banks minimum payment design and representative guidance created the reasonable belief that I was satisfying the 0 % promotional conditions. The retroactive application of interest after two years of faithful payments constitutes both a deceptive act and an abusive practice under federal law. 

I am asking the CFPB to formally reinvestigate this matter, compel Synchrony to provide the documentation requested above, and consider appropriate consumer relief and enforcement action.

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