Consumer complaint received 2026-05-05 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: SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
I. BACKGROUND : HOW THIS ACCOUNT WAS OPENED I am a California resident. I am filing this complaint because I was defrauded and Synchrony Bank has refused to address it. In XX/XX/XXXX, I attended a XXXX XXXX XXXX art event aboard a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX is a XXXX company, headquartered in XXXX, Michigan. A XXXX XXXX XXXX sales representative opened a XXXX XXXX XXXX Synchrony Bank credit card in my name at the event, as part of the same transaction in which I purchased the artwork. The card was not pre-existing. It was originated at the point of sale, by the same party who misrepresented the artwork, as the direct mechanism for financing that purchase. Synchrony Bank is not a neutral third-party lender in this matter. Synchrony is XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX dedicated financing partner. The XXXX XXXX-branded card exists solely to facilitate XXXX XXXX sales. Synchrony profits directly when XXXX XXXX sells. The credit extension and the fraudulent transaction were a single, seamless event, and Synchrony 's continued denial of this dispute can not be separated from that financial relationship. II. THE UNDERLYING FRAUD Before the purchase, I told the XXXX XXXX sales representative, XXXX XXXX, that I was specifically interested in an original painting and that I was less interested in a giclee or any form of reproduction. XXXX XXXX took me to a separate, private, and dimly lit office aboard the ship and verbally assured me the work she was specifically having brought up from storage for me was an original painting with 'NO digital medium. ' She cited her art history background as the basis for that assurance. She refused to provide gallery Wi-Fi access, citing the area as a 'known dead spot, ' making independent verification impossible at the time of sale. The invoice was presented for signature on a signature pad device in a dimly lit private office. I was not afforded a meaningful opportunity to read the terms prior to signing. The total charged to the Synchrony account for this specific piece was {$14000.00}. Post-sale, while researching the piece, XXXX XXXX customer service representative XXXX XXXX confirmed in writing that the artwork is in fact a giclee, a digitally printed canvas with hand-applied embellishments. This directly contradicts what I was told at the time of sale, where the only reference to medium was verbal. XXXX XXXX 's own invoice contains zero disclosure of medium, with no mention of 'giclee, ' 'digital, ' 'print, ' or any production method, yet XXXX XXXX routinely uses the term 'giclee ' on its own website listings for nearly identical works. They know the correct terminology. They chose not to use it. The artwork was priced at a level consistent with original hand-painted work, well above the market value of a mass-produced giclee, further reinforcing the false representation that I was purchasing an original painting. III. CANCELLATION DEMANDS AND DELIVERY REFUSAL Upon learning of the misrepresentation, I submitted written cancellation demands to XXXX XXXX on the following dates : XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX ultimately refused every request. Despite a representative verbally agreeing to cancel by phone, XXXX XXXX subsequently reversed that position and cited an 'all sales final ' policy. Prior to shipment, I provided advance written notice that I would not accept delivery if the matter remained unresolved. XXXX XXXX shipped the artwork on XX/XX/XXXX, after receiving that notice, in deliberate disregard of my documented objections. I refused delivery at the XXXX facility. The artwork was returned to XXXX XXXX. As of the date of this complaint, XXXX XXXX is in possession of both the artwork and my payment of {$14000.00} in full. I have never had possession of the goods I was charged for. IV. SYNCHRONY BANK 'S SPECIFIC FAILURES A. Wrongful Denial of Reg Z Billing Dispute I filed a formal billing dispute with Synchrony Bank under the Fair Credit Billing Act ( FCBA ), 15 U.S.C. 1666 et seq. My dispute was supported by the following evidence : XXXX correspondence in which XXXX XXXX representative XXXX XXXX admitted the artwork had been 'printed on, ' a direct written admission of misrepresentation after saying it was a painting on canvas earlier in that same conversation. Post-sale written confirmation from XXXX XXXX customer service ( XXXX XXXX ) that the artwork is a giclee Five documented written cancellation demands Advance written notice of refusal to accept delivery XXXX delivery refusal and return-to-sender documentation Park West invoice containing zero medium disclosure Synchrony denied my dispute. In doing so, Synchrony sided with its revenue-generating merchant partner over a consumer presenting written proof of fraud. This denial is inconsistent with Synchrony 's obligations under the FCBA, which requires a creditor to conduct a reasonable investigation and resolve billing disputes involving goods or services not delivered as agreed. B. Reporting a Fraudulently Induced Balance Synchrony is currently reporting a balance of {$14000.00} on my credit file. This balance is not a legitimate debt. It is the product of a fraudulently induced transaction in which I was deceived into purchasing a print that was misrepresented as an original painting, charged for goods I never accepted, and denied a refund despite never receiving the merchandise. I have a perfect payment history across every credit account I have ever held. I have never missed a payment on anything. The balance reported on this account is directly and exclusively the result of an active, documented fraud complaint, not financial irresponsibility. C. Complicity as Dedicated Financing Partner Synchrony 's financial relationship with XXXX XXXX XXXX is not incidental. Synchrony issues and services the branded credit card that XXXX XXXX uses to finance its sales. Synchrony profits from every XXXX XXXX transaction. This relationship creates a direct conflict of interest in Synchrony 's investigation of billing disputes involving XXXX XXXX, and the pattern of Synchrony siding with XXXX XXXX over consumers in documented fraud cases warrants regulatory scrutiny. The CFPB 's own complaint database reflects XXXX complaints against Synchrony Financial as of XX/XX/XXXX, making it one of the most complained-about financial institutions in the database. This figure is verified at consumerfinance.gov/data-research/consumer-complaints. The complaints reflect a consistent pattern of siding with merchant partners over consumers in billing disputes. XXXX XXXX XXXX specifically has been cited by other consumers as a case where Synchrony declined to intervene despite clear evidence of misrepresentation. It is also worth noting that the CFPB previously ordered Synchrony 's predecessor, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, to pay {$220.00} million in consumer relief for deceptive and discriminatory credit card practices. That prior enforcement action establishes that Synchrony has already been found by this Bureau to have engaged in systemic consumer harm and underscores the importance of regulatory oversight of its dispute handling practices. V. XXXX XXXX XXXXY 'S DOCUMENTED PATTERN OF FRAUD This complaint is not about an isolated transaction. XXXX XXXX XXXX has a long, publicly documented history of the precise conduct at issue here : Federal Class Action, Docket No. XXXX ( XXXX. XXXX ) : XXXX XXXX was accused of systematically defrauding consumers through misrepresentation of artwork, inflated appraisals, and forged certificates of authenticity, including claims under RICO, 18 U.S.C. 1962. Consumer Review Platforms : Hundreds of complaints on XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and cruise line forums mirror my experience in material detail. More than two dozen lawsuits since XXXX alleging fraud, misrepresentation, and consumer protection violations across multiple states. XXXX XXXX XXXX 's XXXX complaint history is publicly documented. A verified consumer reviewer as recently as XX/XX/XXXX cited an XXXX rating from the XXXX in connection with the same misrepresentation pattern described in this complaint ( park-west-gallery.pissedconsumer.com ). XXXX XXXX became XXXX XXXX in XX/XX/XXXX mid-dispute a status that requires a paid membership fee. Independent consumer platforms where accreditation can not be purchased tell a different story : XXXXConsumer rates XXXX XXXX XXXX stars across XXXX reviews, XXXX rates them XXXX across XXXX reviews, and XXXX rates them XXXX stars across XXXX reviews, with complaints through XXXX and XXXX describing the identical pattern of misrepresentation and refusal to refund. Synchrony Bank, as XXXX XXXX 's dedicated financing partner, is on notice of this pattern. Continued denial of fraud-based disputes involving XXXX XXXX while maintaining a profitable merchant relationship with them is not a neutral business decision. It is an enabling one. VI. LAWS AND REGULATIONS VIOLATED A. Fair Credit Billing Act ( FCBA ), 15 U.S.C. 1666 et seq. Synchrony failed to conduct a reasonable investigation of my billing dispute involving goods that were misrepresented and never accepted. Under the FCBA, a creditor must investigate and resolve disputes involving goods or services not delivered as agreed. The evidence I submitted, including XXXX XXXX 's own written admission, was sufficient to support reversal. Synchrony 's denial was not consistent with its statutory obligations. B. Consumer Financial Protection Act ( CFPA ), 12 U.S.C. 5531 Synchrony 's conduct, including its denial of a well-documented fraud dispute constitutes an unfair, deceptive, and abusive act or practice ( UDAAP ) in connection with a consumer financial product. Synchrony 's financial entanglement with XXXX XXXX XXXX creates a structural conflict of interest that has demonstrably harmed this consumer. C. Michigan Consumer Protection Act, MCL 445.903 XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX underlying conduct violates multiple subsections of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act, which applies as XXXX XXXX is headquartered in XXXX, Michigan : MCL 445.903 ( 1 ) ( c ) : Representing that goods have characteristics they do not have MCL 445.903 ( 1 ) ( e ) : Representing that goods are of a particular standard or quality when they are not MCL 445.903 ( 1 ) ( n ) : Causing confusion as to the legal rights and remedies of a party to a transaction MCL 445.903 ( 1 ) ( o ) : Causing confusion as to the terms or conditions of credit extended in a transaction, particularly relevant given the point-of-sale card origination D. Michigan Uniform Commercial Code , MCL 440.2721 Park West 's conduct constitutes material misrepresentation sufficient to support full rescission of the transaction and the credit account opened to finance it. E. California Consumers Legal Remedies Act ( CLRA ), Civil Code 1750 et seq. As a California resident, I am protected by the CLRA. XXXX XXXX 's conduct violates : Civil Code 1770 ( a ) ( 5 ) : Representing that goods have characteristics they do not have Civil Code 1770 ( a ) ( 6 ) : Representing that goods are original when they are not Civil Code 1770 ( a ) ( 7 ) : Representing that goods are of a particular standard or quality when they are of another Civil Code 1770 ( a ) ( 18 ) : Misrepresenting the authority of a salesperson to negotiate the final terms of a transaction F. California Unfair Competition Law ( UCL ), Business and Professions Code 17200 et seq. XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX conduct constitutes an unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practice under California 's UCL. All three prongs apply. The UCL also permits MCPA and FCRA violations to serve as predicate unlawful acts under California law. G. California False Advertising Law, Business and Professions Code 17500 et seq. The artwork was priced and sold at a level consistent with original hand-painted work. This pricing representation, combined with the verbal assurances at point of sale, constitutes false advertising under California law. VII. RELIEF REQUESTED I respectfully request that the CFPB take the following actions : 1. Direct Synchrony Bank to reverse the full charge of {$14000.00} and close the account with no adverse credit reporting. 2. Direct Synchrony Bank to remove the reported balance of {$14000.00} from my credit file. 3. Investigate Synchrony Bank 's systemic practice of denying fraud-based billing disputes involving XXXX XXXX XXXX , given its role as XXXX XXXX XXXX dedicated financing partner. 4. Take appropriate regulatory action against Synchrony Bank for UDAAP violations and FCRA noncompliance in connection with this matter. VIII. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION The following documents are available upon request to support this complaint : XXXX XXXX XXXX invoice, no medium disclosure Post-sale XXXX correspondence, XXXX XXXX representative XXXX XXXX admits artwork was 'printed on " Post-sale written admission from XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX customer service ) Written cancellation demands : XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX, XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX and XXXX, XXXX Advance written notice of refusal to accept delivery XXXX delivery refusal and return-to-sender documentation Synchrony Bank billing dispute and denial screenshots I have never missed a payment on any credit account. I am a California resident with an unblemished financial history. This balance exists solely because I refused to pay for goods that were fraudulently misrepresented to me. Reports have been filed with the authorities. I want the following questions addressed as XXXX XXXX from synchrony XXXX ex XXXX did not return my calls. 1. My dispute was denied four times. None of your letters mention the misrepresentation of the artwork 's medium. Why not? 2. Did you review XXXX XXXX 's written confirmation that the artwork is a giclee, not an original painting? 3. Did you review the XXXX messages where the XXXX XXXX sales rep admitted the canvas was printed on? 4. XXXX XXXX 's XX/XX/XXXX letter to you never mentions the medium of the artwork. Why did you accept that as a sufficient response? 5. This was a private sale in a separate office, not an auction. Did your investigation consider that the all sales final policy may not apply? 6. The artwork was returned to XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. They have both the artwork and my money. Why is this balance still on my account? 7. California law Business and Professions Code 17200 says denying a misrepresentation-based dispute while being the merchant 's dedicated financing partner is an unlawful business practice. How does your denial comply with that? 8. California Civil Code 1770 ( a ) ( 5 ) prohibits representing that goods have characteristics they do not have. The artwork was sold as an original painting but confirmed in writing to be a giclee. Was that considered? 9. California Civil Code 1770 ( a ) ( 7 ) prohibits misrepresenting the quality or standard of goods. An original painting and a digitally printed giclee are not the same. Was that considered? 10. California law says an all-sales final policy can not be enforced when the sale involved misrepresentation. Did your investigation consider whether that policy is even legally enforceable here? 11. How much does Synchrony make from being XXXX XXXX XXXX 's dedicated financing partner?

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