Consumer complaint received 2026-04-07 00:00:00
Product: Credit card — General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Problem with a purchase shown on your statement — Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement
Company: SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
I am filing this complaint against Synchrony Bank for failure to conduct a " reasonable investigation '' of a billing error as required by the Fair Credit Billing Act ( FCBA ). On XX/XX/year>, I authorized a transaction of {$330.00} for XXXX # XXXX. The merchant failed to provide the goods and submitted a fraudulent, recycled tracking number from an unrelated shipment to claim fulfillment. Synchrony Bank summarily denied my dispute and closed the case without providing me the opportunity to refute the merchants logically impossible evidence, representing a clear failure of their investigative duties under Regulation Z. The banks investigation was deficient and violates the procedural requirements of 12 CFR 1026.13 ( Regulation Z ). By denying the claim without allowing a rebuttal, the bank failed to account for blatant factual contradictions that prove a billing error occurred. Had the bank conducted a " reasonable investigation '' as mandated by Regulation Z, the following would have been immediately clear : Chronological Impossibility : The merchants proof of delivery ( XXXX XXXX ) is dated XX/XX/year>. My order was not placed or paid for until XX/XX/year>. Under any reasonable standard of review required by Regulation Z, it should be noted as a logical impossibility for an order to be delivered 15 days before the transaction occurred. Logistics and Cost Discrepancy : The tracking data shows a weight of XXXX lbs. This is a physical impossibility for the volume of mass production units purchased. Furthermore, the {$280.00} shipping fee charged for this order is inconsistent with a XXXX lb package ; this high fee confirms the shipment was intended for a large bulk order that was never dispatched. Direct Contradiction by Merchants Own Records : The merchants official order portal for the primary contract ( # XXXX ) confirms that the order remains in " Waiting for supplier to ship '' status and is explicitly marked as " Delayed dispatch. '' This system-generated status from the merchant 's own platform serves as a definitive admission that the units never left the facility. Merchant Admissions of Possession : Written communications from the merchant dated XX/XX/year>, confirm the goods were still in their possession at the factory, XXXX months after the date the bank accepted as the " delivery '' date. XXXX XXXX : The XXXX XXXX XXXX for tracking number XXXX proves the merchant did not ship the purchased goods. The invoice specifies a quantity of only XXXX units belonging to a separate, smaller unrelated sample order. The merchant is attempting to use the delivery confirmation of a XXXX " gift '' valued at {$1.00} to overwrite the non-delivery of a XXXX commercial shipment. Furthermore, the invoice shows the shipment was processed on XX/XX/year>, XXXX weeks before the transaction on XX/XX/year>. It is a gross violation of commercial logic to suggest that a XXXX lb package valued at {$1.00} would justify the {$280.00} shipping fee charged.

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