Consumer complaint received 2025-11-16 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: NY

Complaint narrative:
Subject : Synchrony Bank Failure to Conduct a Reasonable Investigation, Fraud Alert System Failures, and Communication Errors. 
I am filing a new complaint regarding Synchrony Banks continued mishandling of a clear case of credit card fraud involving unauthorized transactions on my compromised Groupon account. My prior CFPB complaint, XXXX, was closed based on Synchronys incomplete and inadequate response, but the underlying fraud remains unresolved. 
Synchrony Bank has repeatedly denied my dispute despite clear evidence of account compromise, multiple investigative failures, a malfunction of their fraud alert system, and significant communication errors within their fraud department. 
My XXXX account was accessed by an unauthorized party on XX/XX/XXXX, and multiple purchases were made without my knowledge or consent using my Synchrony credit card. I reported the fraud to Synchrony immediately the same day. The account was closed, and an investigation was initiated. Since then, Synchrony has issued multiple denials based on incorrect assumptions, incomplete investigative steps, and inaccurate claims regarding my submission of documentation. 
I also requested that XXXX permanently close my account to stop further fraudulent activity, as I was unable to change my password. It took several days for XXXX to complete my request, leaving the account vulnerable.

1. Improper reliance on email delivery to claim authorization. 
Synchrony claimed the transactions were authorized because confirmation emails were delivered to my inbox. This demonstrates a misunderstanding of how XXXX functions. 
Groupon vouchers are stored and redeemable directly from the XXXX account, regardless of whether emails are accessed. Email delivery does not control access to vouchers and does not prove that I authorized or completed any transaction. I had not accessed my XXXX account since XX/XX/XXXX. The only reason I found out about the fraud was because my XXXX account was not compromised. 
XXXX on email copies as proof of authorization does not meet the Regulation Z requirement for a reasonable investigation. 

2. Failure to verify login/IP/device data standard in digital-goods fraud cases. 
Synchrony closed my dispute without obtaining or reviewing login history, device fingerprints, or IP addresses from XXXX. As I stated multiple times, no one in my household made these transactions, and any IP used could belong to a VPN or system-generated address, not me. 
Synchrony relied instead on a XXXX note referencing a partial AVS match and a location within XXXX mile of the billing city. A partial AVS match does not establish cardholder authorization, and a location within XXXX mile of the billing city could easily reflect a VPN or system IP, not the authorized cardholder. 

3. Fraud-Alert System Failures.

Synchrony Banks fraud-alert system failed completely during the fraudulent activity, despite historically sending me alerts for much smaller or less suspicious transactions. The failure appears to result from multiple systemic flaws : Merchant misclassification XXXX is likely treated as a low-risk merchant, causing the system to under-prioritize alerts for unusual activity. 
Repeated transactions of the same amount done within short period of time to the same vendor ignored failed to trigger alerts, even though this pattern is highly suspicious. 
Timing of transactions XXXX occurred between XXXX AM and XXXX AM, which is unusual to my transaction history, and therefore fraud detection sensitivity must be enhanced, but failed instead. 
Partial AVS match misinterpreted A partial address verification match should have raised a red flag, but the system incorrectly treated it as sufficient authorization. 
Digital-goods vulnerability Digital purchases like XXXX vouchers are incorrectly categorized as low-risk, resulting in weak monitoring for unauthorized activity. 
Algorithmic inconsistency Historically, alerts were sent for legitimate purchases under similar circumstances, showing the system did not function properly on the night of the fraud. 
These failures demonstrate that Synchrony Banks internal fraud detection and alert systems were inadequate, inconsistent, and not functioning as promised, placing the burden of risk entirely on me as the account holder. 

4. Inaccurate statements about documentation & systemic communication failures.

In its most recent denial, Synchrony claimed that I did not provide the requested information, which is false.

I submitted all documents using their prepaid envelope, as directed. Their fax number was nonfunctional, and their PO Box provides no tracking, meaning consumers can not confirm receipt. I alerted Synchrony bank about the issue multiple times. During a phone call, a Synchrony representative admitted that documents were not easily accessible or not properly attached to my case internally. Synchrony ignored these system failures and incorrectly blamed me. 

5. Improper and harmful credit reporting.

Synchrony has reported delinquency for charges that are still under dispute. My credit score dropped from XXXX to XXXX, causing financial harm. Reporting negative information while a fraud dispute remains unresolved is improper.

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 monetary relief