Consumer complaint received 2026-03-04 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 am filing this complaint as a clarification and evidence-based update to my prior CFPB complaint ( s ) regarding Synchrony Bank ( XXXX Rewards / Lowes credit card ). This is not a request to initiate another investigation. Synchrony already opened an investigation on XX/XX/year>, and I have already provided these updates directly to Synchrony ; the issue is that Synchronys prior investigations were incomplete and not reasonable, and Synchrony has not fully acknowledged or cured the underlying internal accounting error. New evidence now proves the root cause : Synchrony mishandled an account migration/ledger continuity event across multiple account numbers. The dispute began around a {$150.00} credit/refund issue and later expanded due to how Synchrony migrated and posted balances across accounts ( including during a fraud-related account change ). The disputed amount was effectively duplicated/misapplied through internal posting and dispute-handling actions, which is why the alleged balance kept reappearing and why downstream fees/interest and credit furnishing harm occurred. The key failure is that Synchrony did not conduct a reasonable investigation because it did not review the complete account chain and withheld critical records. I did not have online access to the original account ending XXXX while disputing this matter and could not obtain those statements through my disclosure demands. Synchrony repeatedly shifted the burden to me to prove facts that are exclusively within Synchronys control ( full statement history, internal notes, migration/merge audit trail, refund-check documentation, chargeback/rebuild documentation, and full ledger history ), while simultaneously keeping the foundational records inaccessible. Newly obtained statements for account ending XXXX materially change the record. Once I obtained the XXXX statements, it became clear the dispute involves internal transfer/migration handling and ledger continuity errors across the account chain. This is information Synchrony should have reviewed from the beginning and should have provided to me earlier. The existence and content of the XXXX record demonstrates that prior investigations were not complete and any prior final response conclusion was not based on a full record. Synchronys internal notes on the XXXX account include an admission of fault. I was advised that the XXXX statement for account ending XXXX contains Synchrony-generated internal notes indicating that proper dispute procedure was not followed and that the issue was treated as a Synchrony error. Synchrony refused to acknowledge fault for months while withholding the original-account statements and continuing to treat the matter as consumer liability. In summary, I now have evidence that the issue is rooted in Synchronys internal accounting and migration/servicing errors, and that Synchronys prior investigation efforts were not reasonable because they did not incorporate the original account history and internal notes and did not reconcile the complete account chain. Why CFPB involvement is still needed Although Synchrony has provided narrative responses and has claimed to investigate, the core problems remain : No reasonable investigation : prior reviews were incomplete because they did not reconcile all related account numbers and did not produce the investigation file and method of verification. Evidence withholding and burden shifting : Synchrony kept critical records inaccessible ( original account statements/notes ) while demanding that I provide proof of their own internal ledger/migration actions. Failure to acknowledge fault and cure : despite internal notes indicating Synchrony error, Synchrony delayed, refused to fully acknowledge responsibility, and did not promptly cure the issue with full documentation.

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