Consumer complaint received 2018-02-14 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Opening an account — Didn't receive terms that were advertised
Company: U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION - SAN FRANCISCO MAIN BRANCH
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
On XX/XX/2017, I opened a XXXX XXXX XXXX checking account with a promotion of {$200.00} for meeting certain qualifying terms. They included a Direct Deposit of {$500.00} OR 10 debit card transactions within 60 days. I met both of these qualifications on XX/XX/17 with 10 debit card transactions in addition to a XXXX XXXX of {$500.00} on XX/XX/17. 

I spoke with XXXX XXXX, a representative who initially opened my account after Union Bank initially opened/closed my account in XX/XX/2017. XXXX XXXX informed me that the account was fully open on XX/XX/2017, that the promotion was indeed tied to the account, and if I met the qualification terms ( Direct Deposit, or 10 debit card transactions ) that I would receive the {$200.00} bonus. 

On Wednesday, XX/XX/XXXX, I contacted the office of the president ( XXXX ) to follow up on this promotion and why it had not been granted to me. 

Unfortunately, XXXX informed that because the account was " CLOSED '' I would not receive the promotional bonus. I then stated the obvious, that the account had continuous activity, and that the account actually had a {$25.00} balance. How can the account be " CLOSED '' if there is a current balance!? 

XXXX then informed me that the terms state the bonus would not be applied if the account is not open and not in good standing. 

I challenge Union Bank to prove that this account was not open and " not in good standing ''. I did not receive disclosure that the account was ever closed or inactive. If Union Bank 's motivation is to exclude the payout to accounts with zero balances, it should state so in its terms and conditions with something as simple as " Account must have a positive balance at time of payout ''. 

I believe this is completely unjust and unfair considering the circumstances and how often the account displayed activity. At no point was the account " CLOSED '' or " INACTIVE '' as XXXX states. This is an obvious breach of terms considering the way your terms and conditions is worded, and I fully commit to pursuing the {$200.00} for the sake of principle and as a testament to the importance of customer service and transparecy in banking. Especially when it comes to terms and conditions. 

The only resolution would be to grant the {$200.00} promotional bonus as promised in the terms and conditions. At no point was the account " inactive '', " closed '', or " not in good standing ''. These are subjective terms and an account with a zero balance does not necessarily determine inactivity, closure, or good standing. 

Attached are my Union Bank statements, which clearly show the required transactions and qualifications being met per the terms and conditions. In no statement cycle was my account inactive or not in good standing. And no point was my account determined to be " closed ''.

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