Consumer complaint received 2025-11-01 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: NC

Complaint narrative:
Consumer Complaint XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Company : Synchrony Bank XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) of Transaction ( XXXX ) : Various charges between XX/XX/year> and XX/XX/year>, totaling {$31000.00} Issue : Deceptive Charges/ Dispute Denied Description of Complaint : I am submitting this complaint to formally report a dispute regarding {$31000.00} in charges from XXXX XXXX a social-casino application. These charges are associated with slot-machine-style gameplay and virtual chips, designed to induce repeated, excessive spending, misrepresent odds of winning, and conceal real costs. 

Federal litigation against XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX ( XXXX. XXXX, XXXX  ) confirms that social-casino platforms profit from and facilitate potentially unlawful gambling-like behavior, further supporting that these charges are deceptive, unfair, and unauthorized. 

North Carolina Legal and Regulatory Context : NC UDTPA ( Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act ) prohibits unfair, deceptive, or misleading business practices. XXXX XXXX XXXX : Misrepresents the nature of gameplay as casual, not gambling Uses addictive mechanics and deceptive odds to induce excessive spending Fails to deliver tangible value for purchased virtual chips NC Lottery laws restrict lottery-style or gambling operations to authorized entities. XXXX XXXX mimics state-regulated lottery functions without authorization. 
Communications with the XXXX XXXX XXXX indicate that social-casino apps like XXXX XXXX imitate lottery and gambling functions, potentially violating state law. 

I have disputed charges from XXXX XXXX based on multiple issues, including technical and platform errors, such as app crashes, freezes during gameplay, lost or uncredited virtual chips due to glitches, server or connectivity errors that prevented proper redemption of rewards, and malfunctioning features that caused unexpected losses. Additionally, I have raised concerns about deceptive and misleading practices, including the misrepresentation of odds in slot-machine-style games, marketing the app as a casual game when it functions like gambling, concealment of the real cost of virtual chips and purchases, misleading promotions or offers that appear to guarantee prizes, and psychological manipulation designed to encourage repeated, high-value purchases. I have also challenged quality-of-service issues, including poor or nonresponsive customer support, inability to resolve technical issues through customer service, and delayed or denied assistance despite providing proof of problems. 

The charges from XXXX XXXX are disputable under several federal consumer protection laws. The Truth in Lending Act ( TILA, 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq. ) protects consumers from unauthorized or misleading credit charges and gives cardholders the right to dispute billing errors for unauthorized or incorrect charges. The Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA, 15 U.S.C. 1693 et seq. ) protects consumers against unauthorized electronic transactions and applies when a charge is processed as an electronic debit from a credit or debit account. The Fair Credit Billing Act ( FCBA, 15 U.S.C. 1666 et seq. ) allows cardholders to dispute billing errors for goods or services not delivered as promised, including transactions where technical glitches or defective service prevented proper delivery. Additionally, the Federal Trade Commission Act ( FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 45 ) prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in commerce, which is relevant to misleading marketing and deceptive mechanics used by social-casino apps like XXXX XXXX. 
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Services Not Provided / Defective XXXX Fraudulent / Misrepresentation / Unauthorized Merchant Practices XXXX Quality / Defective Service XXXX Misrepresentation / False Claims These factors further demonstrate that the disputed charges are associated with illegal, deceptive, and unfair practices. 

Timeline of Dispute Actions with Synchrony : I submitted multiple dispute requests to Synchrony Bank with full supporting documentation on the following dates : XX/XX/year> XX/XX/year> XX/XX/year> XX/XX/year> XX/XX/year> XX/XX/year> XX/XX/year> XX/XX/year> XX/XX/year> XX/XX/year> XX/XX/year> XX/XX/year> XX/XX/year> XX/XX/year> XX/XX/year> XX/XX/year> Despite providing all required proof, Synchrony denied the dispute on several occasions with the latest being on XX/XX/year>, stating that no proof was received. 

Prior Chargebacks : I have previously disputed similar XXXX XXXX charges with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and those chargebacks were honored in full, confirming the validity of my claims. 

Actions Taken by Me : Submitted multiple disputes with supporting documentation Provided screenshots, transaction history, and prior chargeback proof Responded to Synchronys denial letters requesting reopening Actions Taken by Company : Denied dispute on XX/XX/year> citing insufficient proof Closed the dispute and added the charge to the account balance Requested Resolution : Immediate reopening of the dispute Full reversal of the {$31000.00} charge Assurance that the disputed amount will not accrue interest while under review Closing Statement : Given the repeated submissions, prior successful chargebacks, and documented deceptive practices by XXXX XXXX, I request that the CFPB intervene to ensure Synchrony reopens and resolves this dispute promptly. If unresolved, I am prepared to escalate the matter further to state and federal consumer protection authorities.

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