Consumer complaint received 2026-05-06 00:00:00
Product: Credit card — General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Advertising and marketing, including promotional offers — Didn't receive advertised or promotional terms
Company: U.S. BANCORP
State: OH

Complaint narrative:
I applied for the Fidelity Rewards Visa Signature Card directly through Fidelity 's official product marketing page. I have retained a dated PDF of this page as evidence. The card is issued by Elan Financial Services under a co-branding arrangement with Fidelity. The advertised terms that I applied under, as clearly disclosed on that page, were : A 0 % introductory XXXX on purchases and balance transfers for the first XXXX billing cycles. The footnote disclosure explicitly states : " The 0 % introductory XXXX applies to XXXX and is valid for the first XXXX billing cycles. The 0 % APR applies to balance transfers made within 30 days of account opening. '' A XXXX bonus ( equivalent to {$150.00} cash back when deposited into an eligible Fidelity account ) after making at least {$1000.00} in eligible net purchases within the first 90 days of account opening. These promotional terms were the primary reason I applied for the card. After my account was opened, Elan Financial Services failed to apply the advertised terms to my account. I have contacted Elan customer service multiple times to resolve this and have received inconsistent and shifting explanations on each call : In XXXX, a representative told me there was an unspecified " error '' with my signup. When I asked for specifics about what the error was, none were provided. On XX/XX/year>, a different representative, XXXX, told me that the 0 % introductory XXXX applied only to balance transfers and not to purchases. This directly contradicts the plain language of the marketing disclosure, which states the 0 % APR applies to " purchases and balance transfers '' and which separately confirms in the footnote that " the 0 % introductory XXXX applies to XXXX and is valid for the first XXXX billing cycles. '' XXXX XXXX then told me that the offer " XXXX not be valid '' because it appeared on Fidelity 's public website and was not a targeted communication addressed to me individually. The representative stated that Elan generally requires a targeted communication to confirm the status of an offer. I requested a supervisor at that point. The position that a publicly advertised credit card offer is not binding because it was not individually targeted is contrary to Regulation Z under the Truth in Lending Act ( 12 CFR 1026.16 ), which governs advertising of open-end credit, including public website advertising, and requires that advertised promotional terms be available to consumers who apply in response. There is no legal requirement that a credit card offer be individually targeted to be binding on the issuer. The combination of ( 1 ) refusing to honor terms that are plainly stated in Elan 's own co-branded marketing materials, ( 2 ) providing shifting and contradictory explanations for the refusal across multiple calls, and ( 3 ) asserting a legal standard for offer validity that does not exist, appears to constitute a deceptive practice under the CFPB 's UDAAP authority. I am requesting that Elan Financial Services apply the originally advertised promotional terms to my account : the 0 % introductory APR on purchases for the first XXXX billing cycles, and the XXXX ( {$150.00} ) bonus upon my completion of the {$1000.00} net purchase requirement within 90 days of account opening. I have retained the dated marketing PDF and contemporaneous notes from each call including dates, times, representative names, and the explanations provided.

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