Consumer complaint received 2025-08-11 00:00:00
Product: Credit card — Store credit 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: Bread Financial Holdings, Inc.
State: NJ

Complaint narrative:
Dear CFPB, I am submitting this follow-up to highlight critical omissions and misrepresentations in Comenity XXXX XXXX recent response to the CFPB.

While Comenity claims my account was handled according to law, their own receipt and promotional plan history reveal systemic violations in multiple areas : XXXX. Misclassification of a Trade-In as a New Purchase to Trigger Additional Interest On XX/XX/year>, I traded in a ring originally purchased under an XXXX deferred interest plan for a new ring. 
This was not a separate, standalone purchase it was a continuation of the original transaction with a reduced total cost after the trade-in value was applied. 
Despite this, Comenity placed the transaction into a completely new 18-month promotional plan instead of adjusting the existing plan or applying the proper trade-in handling process.

This resulted in two overlapping interest-bearing promotional balances, a practice that effectively doubled the interest exposure and violated the fair and accurate representation of promotional financing terms. 

XXXX. Improper and Duplicative {$520.00} Protection Plan Charge The receipt Comenity provided in their CFPB response shows a {$520.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX added to the XX/XX/year> transaction. 
I was already paying for a protection plan on the original ring one that allowed cleanings and repairs at any XXXX location. 
I was never offered the option to transfer, cancel, or credit the original plan. 
Adding a second, identical coverage plan without disclosure or consent constitutes an unauthorized charge and a deceptive business practice. 

XXXX. Misleading Separate XXXX XXXX XXXX claims XXXX is responsible for all merchandise-related matters and that Comenity only handles credit accounts. 
This is misleading and incomplete. XXXX directly promotes Comenity financing to every customer at the point of sale, processes the credit application in-store, and integrates Comenitys promotional plan terms into the purchase process and advertising Comenity bank promotional financing terms on their website. 
Comenity can not disclaim responsibility for how its financing is marketed and applied especially when its own financing terms were misapplied during a trade-in transaction. 

XXXX. Selective Documentation & Receipt Discrepancies The receipt Comenity uploaded to the CFPB XXXX is materially different in format and content from the original receipt I received in-store, which was a simple printed receipt revealing the actual store address located in ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX New Jersey XXXX 

Furthermore, The version provided to the CFPB omits key context from the original, such as the trade-in designation and prior plan references.

Additionally, in their earlier CFPB reply, Comenity claimed to have provided the receipt, but the document link at that time did not function, withholding key evidence until later in the process.

5. Lack of Transparency on Trade-In Value Application Comenitys response fails to clearly explain how the {$2200.00} trade-in value was applied to the second transaction, or whether it was credited in a way that avoided improper interest accrual. 
This omission is critical because misapplication of credits can artificially inflate financed balances and extend interest obligations.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation