Consumer complaint received 2026-04-29 00:00:00
Product: Credit card — Store credit card
Issue: Other features, terms, or problems — Privacy issues
Company: SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL
State: WA

Complaint narrative:
Synchrony Bank issued me an Amazon XXXX XXXX XXXX without verifying my full legal name. The physical card I received, account ending XXXX, bears the embossed name " XXXX XXXX '' first name plus generational suffix only, with no last name ( photo attached ). On a recorded call dated XX/XX/XXXX at approximately XXXX XXXX XXXX, Synchrony account manager " XXXX '' admitted at the XXXX mark of the call ( Synchrony 's own recording ) that the name on my application was not a first and last name and did not match credit-bureau records. This is Synchrony 's own admission that the bank issued credit without satisfying XXXX XXXX XXXX requirements ( 31 CFR 1020.220 ). Without any prior written notice no adverse-action notice, no change-in-terms notice Synchrony then silently restricted the account, causing transactions that had been initially accepted at point-of-sale to begin declining. I have paid every monthly statement on time and in full. In fact, on XX/XX/XXXX the day after the recorded call in which Synchrony 's representatives told me the account was restricted Synchrony posted a payment from me of {$830.00} ( Account Summary screenshot attached ). The bank accepted my money the day after telling me the card was restricted, while continuing to deny me use of the credit line. The only notification I received of the restriction was a vague in-app banner reading : " Your attention is required. There is an issue with your account. Please call the phone number on the back of your account card. '' That banner does not identify the alleged issue, does not reference adverse action, does not contain the disclosures required by FCRA Section 615 ( 15 USC 1681m ), and does not state any right to dispute. The same Account Summary screen on which that banner appears simultaneously displays " Available Credit {$3600.00} '' ( suggesting credit is available for use ) and a prominent " Make A Payment '' button. The bank built a frictionless path for collecting my payments while providing no in-app path to resolve the account issue. Synchrony 's stated justification is directly contradicted by Synchrony 's own customer portal. While Synchrony claims credit-bureau data mismatch justifies restricting my card, I am simultaneously able to log into Synchrony 's customer portal and view my full statement history and a XXXX XXXX of XXXX, displayed under " Your Credit Score '' with the notation " Updated on XX/XX/XXXX '' ( photo attached ). The bank has therefore had a continuously verified, bureau-matched credit score on file for me since at least XX/XX/XXXX well predating any subsequent claim of bureau-data mismatch. Synchrony can not legitimately claim that bureau data is too unmatched to verify identity for transaction processing while simultaneously displaying recently updated bureau-derived data on the customer portal. One of those positions is false. This is an independent violation of the deceptive-acts prong of UDAAP ( 12 USC 5536 ). Meanwhile, Synchrony continues to bill me, send statements, and report the account to consumer reporting agencies, while denying me the use of the credit line. The bank receives every benefit of the relationship and shifts every cost to me. This is the unfair-acts prong of UDAAP ( 12 USC 5531 ). When I called, Synchrony 's representatives first an unnamed agent, then XXXX as account manager instructed me to mail a copy of my driver 's license and a copy of my Social Security card via unsecured United States Postal Service mail, or alternatively by unsecured fax. XXXX refused secure electronic alternatives, stating verbatim : " I don't have email '' ( XXXX of the recording ) and confirming that fax or postal mail were the only methods offered ( XXXX ). When I raised the obvious identity-theft risk of transmitting a copy of a Social Security card through unsecured USPS, XXXX threatened to disconnect the call rather than respond. Critically, XXXX walked back her own request mid-call : at XXXX she demanded I mail " a copy of your social security card, '' and at XXXX she revised the request down to " the last four of your social. '' This proves the original demand was not consistent bank policy and that Synchrony 's customer-facing representatives are improvising on identity-verification procedures involving the most sensitive customer information. This conduct violates : ( 1 ) the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act Safeguards Rule ( 15 USC 6801 ) and the Interagency Guidelines for Safeguarding Customer Information ; ( 2 ) the Customer Identification Program rule ( 31 CFR 1020.220 ) ; ( 3 ) Regulation Z change-in-terms notice requirements ( 12 CFR 1026.9 ) and the CARD Act of 2 009 ; ( 4 ) Fair Credit Reporting Act Section 615 adverse-action notice requirements ( 15 USC 1681m ), as XXXX admitted on the recording that the action was based at least in part on consumer-report information ; and ( 5 ) the Consumer Financial Protection Act prohibition on unfair, deceptive, and abusive acts and practices ( 12 USC 5531 and 5536 ) on both the unfair and deceptive prongs . I note for the record that Synchrony Bank formerly GE Capital Retail Bank is subject to a 2014 CFPB consent order ( CFPB File No. XXXX, filed XX/XX/XXXX ) for deceptive marketing of credit-card add-on products and for excluding Spanish-preferred and Puerto Rico-mailing-address borrowers from debt-relief offers, which directed approximately {$220.00} XXXX in consumer relief and a {$3.00} XXXX civil money penalty ( final delivered relief approximately {$250.00} XXXX ). I have a recording of the call. Synchrony also has its own recording per XXXX 's disclosure at the XXXX mark. I am willing to provide my recording to CFPB on request. I have separately filed complaints with the Washington State Attorney General ( RCW 19.86 Washington Consumer Protection Act ), the Utah Department of Financial Institutions ( Synchrony 's primary state regulator ), the Washington Department of Financial Institutions, and the FDIC. I am requesting CFPB assistance in obtaining : ( a ) immediate restoration of my card privileges ; ( b ) Synchrony 's written policy regarding unsecured-mail PII transmission ; ( c ) the bank 's written list of secure alternatives actually available to customers ; ( d ) damages for the period during which my approved credit line was rendered unusable without notice while the bank continued to bill and report the account ; and ( e ) an examination finding regarding Synchrony 's information security and customer authentication practices.

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 non-monetary relief