Consumer complaint received 2026-06-17 00:00:00
Product: Credit card — Store credit card
Issue: Problem with a purchase shown on your statement — Card was charged for something you did not purchase with the card
Company: SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL
State: WY

Complaint narrative:
This is a new complaint involving new evidence, new facts, and new violations that were not included in my prior complaint ( Case No. XXXX ), and I am requesting a new investigation. I am disputing two unauthorized charges totaling {$25000.00} placed on my Synchrony XXXX XXXX by XXXX XXXX. I now have new evidence showing that the merchant violated Wyoming law, Utah law, federal law, and Synchronys own merchant rules, and that the contract is void and the charges must be reversed. This is now my third CFPB complaint because Synchrony has repeatedly failed to conduct a lawful investigation. Synchrony simply forwards my dispute to the merchant and then relies entirely on whatever the merchant claims, instead of performing an independent investigation as required under the Fair Credit Billing Act and Regulation Z. Because of the seriousness of these violations and Synchronys repeated failure to investigate properly, I am also filing a simultaneous complaint with the FDIC, the federal regulator responsible for supervising Synchrony Bank. The entire transaction occurred at my Wyoming residence, where the contract was signed and the work was performed. Under Wyoming law, any contract affecting real property or creating a potential lien on a Wyoming home must comply with Wyomings requirements for validity, signatures, and disclosures, and the merchant did not comply with any of these requirements. The salesperson represented the financing as 132 months at 9.99 % and did not disclose that the APR would increase to 26.99 % after the promotional period. He did not provide any Truth in Lending Act disclosures, APR sheet, amortization schedule, or written explanation of the reamortization trigger. The 26.99 % terms only appeared after I disputed the charge, proving the contract was never delivered and was altered after the fact, which is a material violation of TILA and Regulation Z. Although the contract contains a Utah choiceoflaw clause, the merchant did not comply with Utahs Home Solicitation Sales Act. The salesperson controlled the contract on his laptop and left without giving me a copy of the contract, financing terms, TILA disclosures, or the required threeday cancellation form. Under federal, Wyoming, and Utah law, failure to deliver these documents makes the contract void, and the rescission period never began. In addition, the contract creates a security interest in our jointly owned Wyoming home, and under Wyoming property law, any contract that could encumber marital real estate requires both spouses to sign. My wife did not sign anything, did not receive the contract, and did not receive the cancellation form, making the contract void and unenforceable under Wyoming law. I also have new evidence showing that XXXX XXXX and their salesman did not hold the required XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX solicitor license, which is mandatory for doortodoor sales in Wyoming municipalities. A contract formed through unlicensed solicitation is void and unenforceable. I have attached documentation confirming this, including a certified letter I sent to the merchant notifying them that they are no longer licensed in multiple states and that they misrepresented their licensing status. XXXX XXXX is also operating illegally in California without the required XXXX XXXX license, and they were operating illegally in Arizona with a suspended license. Their Utah contractor license expired, their Idaho license lapsed, their Nevada license is glazingonly and does not authorize window installation, and their Oregon license number is incorrect. This is a pattern of multistate illegal contracting activity. I also obtained a licensed home inspection report documenting improper installation, damage, and unsafe workmanship. The inspector found limited visibility around the new windows suggesting that no waterproofing or flange has been installed and warned this may lead to potential water infiltration issues ( Inspection Report, p. 6 ). The report also found excessive gaps around the window trim allowing for pests, water, and other nuisances to enter the property ( p. 6 ), missing clapboard, flashing, and caulking at the bottom of the window ( p. 7 ), window screws fastened at an excessive and sharp angle compromising stability ( p. 7 ), excessive gap between the original framed window and the replacement window ( p. 7 ), excessive polyurethane foam usage ( p. 8 ), and daylight shown through the polyurethane foam to the outside with no flashing ( p. 9 ). These findings confirm that the installation was unsafe, unprofessional, and noncompliant with industry standards. The merchant claims the contract was signed on XX/XX/year>. Under Utah law and the FTC CoolingOff Rule, the rescission period would not expire until midnight on XX/XX/year>. Synchrony funded the merchant on XX/XX/year>, the first rescission day. Funding before cancellation rights expire violates federal law, Utah law, Wyoming law, and Synchronys own XXXX XXXX rules. I also obtained the merchants written Standard Operating Procedure from their website, which states that charges are processed within 2448 hours and do not get routed to the customer for approval. This is a systemic practice of unauthorized billing and violates the Fair Credit Billing Act. The merchant also treated the second charge as a new purchase on XX/XX/XXXX, even though I did not authorize it, I had requested a freeze on the account, and Synchrony failed to honor the freeze. I was forced to close the account to prevent further unauthorized charges. It is also important to clarify what inperson signing legally means. A valid inperson contract requires the consumer to be presented with the full written agreement, disclosures, financing terms, and cancellation rights in their possession, with the opportunity to review before signing. Signing on a salespersons laptop, where the consumer is not given the contract, can not scroll, can not review disclosures, and is not provided a copy, is not legally considered an inperson signing. It is a controlled electronic execution, and when the merchant withholds the contract, the signing is invalid under federal, Utah, and Wyoming law. After I disputed the charge, new financing terms suddenly appeared showing a 26.99 % APR. These terms were never disclosed at signing and were not part of the original contract. Altering financing terms after the fact is unlawful and confirms the contract was never delivered. I also have XXXX XXXX showing the contract was altered after the dispute. I am attaching a detailed timeline showing the date the merchant claimed the contract was signed, the date Synchrony funded the merchant, the date the rescission period should have expired, the date the unauthorized charges were made, the date I requested a freeze, the date Synchrony failed to honor the freeze, and the date I closed the account. Because the contract was signed in Wyoming, the work was performed in Wyoming, the merchant lacked the required Wyoming solicitor license, my wife did not sign the contract, the contract and cancellation form were never delivered, the true APR was not disclosed, the rescission period never began, Synchrony funded the merchant prematurely, the merchant altered the contract after the dispute, and the installation was defective as documented by a licensed inspector, the agreement is void and unenforceable under Wyoming law, Utah law, and federal law, and the charges are unauthorized. The merchant also used the Model Home Scam, falsely claiming I was receiving a 60 % discount and exclusive custom windows, when in fact these windows are available through every XXXX XXXX XXXX.

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