Consumer complaint received 2026-04-13 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:
RE : Dispute Claim # XXXX This complaint concerns Synchrony Banks failure to conduct a reasonable investigation under the Fair Credit Billing Act ( FCBA ). On XXXX XXXX, 2026, I received emergency dental treatment from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, CA ), an in-network XXXX XXXX PPO provider. The merchant collected {$3600.00} via CareCredit and {$300.00} via XXXX. My official XXXX XXXX Explanation of Benefits ( EOB ) determined my patient responsibility to be exactly {$600.00}. The merchant intentionally withheld {$3300.00} in charges from insurance adjudication ; specifically Current Dental Terminology ( XXXX ) codes, the standardized legal identifiers for dental procedures. By withholding XXXX XXXX ( an unspecified endodontic procedure ), XXXX ( after-hours office visit ), and two XXXX ( material upgrades ) codes, the merchant engaged in illegal balance billing to circumvent their XXXX contract. To justify this theft, the merchant fabricated a clinical entry dated XX/XX/scrub>XXXX XXXX 2026, for a surgical procedure I never received on a day I was not present in the office ; a known practice referred to as " unbundling '', wherein an inclusive treatment to the primary procedure is housed on a separate date for internal billing and accounting purposes. Furthermore, my patient records were populated with forged signatures on financial consent forms. I have filed a formal criminal report for forgery and identity theft with the XXXX Police Department ( Incident # XXXX ). Synchronys decision to close this dispute on XXXX XXXX, XXXX, ignored this police report and the official EOB. Critically, Synchrony also ignored the merchants own tacit admission of error : a {$530.00} partial refund issued on XX/XX/XXXX. I further demonstrated good faith during the investigation by charging a legitimate {$2500.00} for services with a different provider on XXXX XXXX, 2026, proving this was a report of specific merchant fraud rather than an attempt to evade debt. This merchant is currently under formal investigation by the California XXXX XXXX XXXX ( License # XXXX, XXXX XXXX ) for record falsification and patient abandonment. XXXX XXXX Special Investigations Unit ( SIU ) has opened a fraud case, and the employer group plan sponsor, XXXX XXXX, has escalated this matter via XXXX XXXX 's account management team. The banks negligence is part of a broader pattern of regulatory capture. While Synchrony lobbies its own victims to oppose California XXXX XXXX, a bill designed to provide basic transparency and protection for patients, they are simultaneously using " medical privacy '' as a bad-faith shield to avoid reviewing any evidence that prove their merchants are committing fraud. I received a personal solicitation from CareCredit containing a blatant misrepresentation of XXXX XXXX, framing a consumer protection law as a " threat to privacy. '' This is a masterclass in deception. This lobbying effort purports to advocate for patient privacy and confidentiality, when it is actually a desperate attempt to maintain a shadow credit market where providers can fabricate entries and forge signatures while the bank remains the ultimate enforcer of the debt. When a billion-dollar corporation lobbies its victims to advocate for their own disenfranchisement, it has moved beyond negligence into systemic malice. I refuse to be a participant in the erosion of my own rights while this institution shields a documented fraudster. Because of Synchrony 's refusal to acknowledge documented criminal activity, I was forced to execute a balance transfer to XXXX to avoid predatory 32.99 % deferred interest on a contractually void balance. The solicitation : -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Tell Your Legislators to Protect Your Medical Privacy Dear XXXX : The California XXXX is considering XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), which could force lenders to access private and sensitive details about your medical care in order to comply with this proposed law. Lenders could need to know what XXXX XXXX you received, if they were medically necessary, and potentially, even your private treatment details, if XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) were to become law. Californians for Medical Privacy believes lenders should not have this information. AB XXXX ( XXXX ) could change that. Tell your legislators that your medical care is not information that lenders should have access to and oppose XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ). Sincerely, CareCredit -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ----

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