Consumer complaint received 2025-08-06 00:00:00
Product: Credit card — General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Other features, terms, or problems — Problem with rewards from credit card
Company: U.S. BANCORP
State: NY

Complaint narrative:
US Bank 's recent changes to its " Smartly '' credit card potentially violate federal and state laws governing credit card issuers, including on account of discriminatory practices, and also potentially implicate laws concerning unfair and deceptive trade practices, false advertising, and consumer protection. 

In XXXX, US Bank launched a XXXX credit card. The XXXX card, in its original form, offered cardholders cash back based on several reward tiers tied to the aggregate amount of assets that a cardholder maintains combined across US Bank qualifying accounts, which included checking, savings, and investment accounts : - 2.5 % cash back with a qualifying balance between {$10000.00} and {$49000.00}. 
- 3 % cash back with a qualifying balance between {$50000.00} and {$99000.00}. 
- 4 % cash back with a qualifying balance of more than {$100000.00}. 

In XX/XX/XXXX, US Bank announced changes to the XXXX card for customers that applied after a cut-off date of XX/XX/XXXX. Among other negative changes, customers who applied for and received the XXXX card after XX/XX/XXXX would need to maintain qualifying balances solely in US Bank checking accounts. In other words, the " new '' version of the XXXX card would not consider assets maintained in US Bank savings or investment accounts for purposes of meeting the qualifying balance requirements for reward tiers. 

US Bank communicated to customers during this time period that applicants who applied for the XXXX  card on or before XX/XX/XXXX would receive the original/better version of the XXXX  card, and all existing XXXX  cardholders as of XX/XX/XXXX would be grandfathered into the old XXXX card terms and benefits. 

I have submitted screenshots of US Bank communications from the beginning of XX/XX/XXXX which state " It is important to note that existing Bank XXXX cardmembers as well as any clients who applied prior to XX/XX/XXXX will receive the original Bank XXXX  Card features and benefits ; the revised card features and benefits will only affect clients who apply for the card on or after XX/XX/XXXX '', as well as a screenshot showing the side-by-side comparison of the versions of the old and new versions of the XXXX  card that were given to customers based on the XX/XX/XXXX cut-off date. 

When I learned about the negative changes coming to the XXXX card in the beginning of XXXX, I rushed to apply for the " original '' version of the card with the superior benefits. I was approved on XX/XX/XXXX for the original version of the XXXX card with the original benefits. After being approved, I opened a US Bank investment account and transferred more than {$100000.00} in investments to my newly-opened US Bank investment account in order to satisfy the qualifying balance requirement to earn the 4 % cash back rate. I made this investment account decision in reliance on US Banks communications that existing cardholders as of XX/XX/XXXX would be grandfathered into the XXXX XXXX card terms and benefits. 

Just XXXX months later, on or around XX/XX/XXXX, US Bank began to provide letters to holders of the existing version of the XXXX  card ( i.e., cardholders as of XX/XX/XXXX ) stating that they would no longer be grandfathered into the old/better XXXX  card terms and benefits effective XX/XX/XXXX. The negative changes directly contradict US Bank 's communications from a few months earlier that existing cardholders prior to XX/XX/XXXX would " receive the original Bank XXXX XXXX features and benefits. '' In addition, the negative changes were not uniformly implemented for all existing cardholders. For example, some existing cardholders received letters stating that that their qualifying balance requirement will continue to count savings and investment accounts ( the " good '' letter, which is identified with letter code XXXX XXXXXXXX ), while other existing cardholders received letters that only their US Bank checking accounts will count to satisfy the qualifying balance requirement ( the " bad '' letter, which is identified with letter code XXXX XXXXXXXX ). I have submitted screenshots of the good letter and bad letter that were sent to US Bank customers. 

In summary differently, US Bank reversed its prior stance that existing cardholders as of XX/XX/XXXX would continue to enjoy the better version of the XXXX card, and some of those cardholders who received the bad letter ( including myself ) moved more than {$100000.00} in assets to US Bank investment accounts only to have their benefits stripped just a few months later. US Bank has not provided any explanation for why it made the decision to create several different versions of their XXXX card product and give better and worse versions to existing cardholders. 

When I contacted US Bank, they refused to provide any explanation for why they were discriminating against some of their customers and not others, and repeated that their terms allow them to make changes to card programs. This response is not adequate. It does not address potential violations of federal and state law. I would never have applied for this credit card ( which involved a hard pull on my credit report ), and I would have never opened a US Bank investment account and transferred more than {$100000.00} in assets to it if US Bank had not taken the position with me and other customers that we would continue to enjoy the benefits of the original version of the XXXX  card by signing up for it by the XX/XX/XXXX deadline. I am exploring legal remedies if I do not receive an adequate resolution from US Bank. I reserve all rights. The CFPB needs to conduct an 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